|
shrike82 posted:I don't think anyone's being malicious when they prioritize their own lifestyle over some vague notion of solidarity with the third world. That sounds pretty malicious but whatever
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:I don't think anyone's being malicious when they prioritize their own lifestyle over some vague notion of solidarity with the third world. Our GDP growth had decoupled from fossil fuel use under Obama. The response to your post is that you don't need to commit national suicide to go green.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Why are people still responding to shrike. Serious question.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Why are people still responding to shrike. Nobody's spent  for a big red title summarizing his views.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Our GDP growth had decoupled from fossil fuel use under Obama. The response to your post is that you don't need to commit national suicide to go green. I don't buy this. I haven't done a phd thesis's worth of research on it or anything, but I believe that anytime you see gdp and energy usage decoupling you're either a.) not seeing where the energy usage got moved to (mexco, china, etc) or b.) seeing fake/bubble-number gdp growth that will pop soon (like the 'financialization' growth of the 00's or asset inflation in general). I know you said 'fossil fuel use' not 'energy use', but for all intents and purposes they're still the same thing  Any de-coupling you might see there is probably at best the coal->natgas shift, which isn't actually decoupling from fossil fuel use its just less carbon per kwh.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
When a country shifts to a service economy and their energy expenditures are reduced, it just means they are buying their goods from other countries.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Morbus posted:We just need catalytic converter buttplugs for cows. Cow burps contain most of methane. And, that's actually where the major antibiotic in livestock is used - monensin - because it kills off the bacteria that make methane gas in the cow's rumen (this antibiotic has no relative that's used in human medicine). Instead, it supports the bacteria that make hydrogen and also makes it so the cow gets more energy out of what it eats.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
What if I eat exclusively seaweed-fed beef?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:What if I eat exclusively seaweed-fed beef? Ideally you should eat beef that is fed humans, that way you help reduce the human population and get to eat steak.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
All this climate change talk has got me down brochachos.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Let's change the topic and take a look at global sea ice. Well, now that's just trolling.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Interestingly, the cause of that is not primarily the Arctic; it's currently at its 3rd lowest sea ice extent for the day. Soon enough, that thin rubble is going to really turn things down. This means that right now the Antarctic is also rather low... not many people have commented on this. Antarctic sea ice extent dipped to record lows earlier in the year, and growth has not been much different than normal: Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
It's because of the unusual ice conditions last year carrying over - there was a sudden, rapid retreat of Antarctic ice in September-November. While the Arctic is dying, the Antarctic overall has held a trend of 1% growth per year for the past couple decades, so that dip was felt.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
It's all just the leadup to the poles flipping. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Not that it matters, but get ready to yell at your senators/reps again over something concrete http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/331671-white-house-leaning-toward-exiting-paris-climate-pact
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Rime posted:It's all just the leadup to the poles flipping.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
I do wonder if all of this is creating a generation of hardcore environmentalists. I mean I was taught about global warming in the 90's when it was relatively uncontroversial. Watching the stupidity and inaction on it ever since has slowly made me more and more hardline and educated on the environment, and that's a trend I see in people my age who I wouldn't have thought of as environmentalists. Sadly though it's probably somewhat too late, but in maybe 30 years or so most of your population will be thinking in those terms as the older generations have died off.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
hooman posted:I do wonder if all of this is creating a generation of hardcore environmentalists. As far as america goes, the older generations have been successfully indoctrinating the younger ones that liberals are wrong, so no. The rural poor, the class more at risk from climate change, will still be voting red in 30 years - and as the effects of climate change become undeniable, the actions they'll be calling for aren't more strict environmental regulations but to place landmines on the border to keep those filthy mexican refugees out, and antagonize India for being the #1 polluter.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
hooman posted:I do wonder if all of this is creating a generation of hardcore environmentalists. In a way. You do tend to have a smaller carbon footprint when you don't have any money.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Yeah, a silver lining for the millennials that live in the 'gig economy' - metered service consumption is pretty good environmentally compared to buying stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
ideally we will all just sit still in our neo-tenement co-work-live-holodeck spaces in our wall-e chairs that don't go anywhere wearing our vr headsets while our dozens $X.99/month subscription flitter about.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adrian_luckman/status/859092984658374657
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
It'll probably calve after November.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Good.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Climate Change: Dying for tomorrow, living for today
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:ideally we will all just sit still in our neo-tenement co-work-live-holodeck spaces in our wall-e chairs that don't go anywhere wearing our vr headsets while our dozens $X.99/month subscription flitter about. Libertarians were unironically suggesting something like this a few years ago as a solution to the jobless/homeless problem.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Is this chunk of ice falling apart going to hastily speed up florida sinking? I posted here before but what pessimistic time frame do scientists give about houses getting hosed in Florida by storm surge and such? When's the most not conservative time frame this could happen?
LolitaSama fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Little to naught, we need a volcano to go off beneath Antarctica for significant sea level rise to occur.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Florida and the rest of the southeast US coast is already sinking and is already facing increased risks from storm surge, hurricanes, king tides, and river/rainfall flooding, but it probably isn't going to go in some "lost city of Atlantis" style submersion. It will subside, centimeter by centimeter, with a few chunks for the video cameras during king tides and the like. During hurricanes, losses will edge higher and higher. During rainy years, damage to buildings and infrastructure will also incrementally climb, with perhaps a stunning event or two thrown in the mix. In any given year, though, only those on the edge will notice immediate losses. In ten or twenty years, however, it will be enough to see on google maps. In forty or fifty years, the infrastructure will either be very different or simply gone.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
The danger point is when enough Floridian real estate owners decide to cut their losses, potentially triggering a housing crisis, which will be well before the land is permanently underwater.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
I'm confused about certain predictions for the Northern Hemisphere. On the one hand I see articles describing how the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation could lead to massive cooling, especially in Europe. But on the other hand, I've read articles saying that any rise above 2 degrees celsius could lead to the average summer in N. America and Europe being as hot as the 2003 European heat wave when tens of thousands of people died. Which scenario is more realistic?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I'm confused about certain predictions for the Northern Hemisphere. On the one hand I see articles describing how the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation could lead to massive cooling, especially in Europe. But on the other hand, I've read articles saying that any rise above 2 degrees celsius could lead to the average summer in N. America and Europe being as hot as the 2003 European heat wave when tens of thousands of people died. Which scenario is more realistic? From what I understand the thermohaline has its biggest impacts on places like northwestern Europe and Nova Scotia (don't quote me there). In the U.S. and Canada, the pacific and arctic drive most of the temperature fluxes.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I'm confused about certain predictions for the Northern Hemisphere. On the one hand I see articles describing how the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation could lead to massive cooling, especially in Europe. But on the other hand, I've read articles saying that any rise above 2 degrees celsius could lead to the average summer in N. America and Europe being as hot as the 2003 European heat wave when tens of thousands of people died. Which scenario is more realistic? Both. Mind that surface ocean currents keep Euro winters mild. Without the NAC, you'll see deep winter freeze become a new normal for western Europe. There's indications the NAC has already lost flow rate, if you're interested in some dry reading.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I'm confused about certain predictions for the Northern Hemisphere. On the one hand I see articles describing how the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation could lead to massive cooling, especially in Europe. But on the other hand, I've read articles saying that any rise above 2 degrees celsius could lead to the average summer in N. America and Europe being as hot as the 2003 European heat wave when tens of thousands of people died. Which scenario is more realistic? The UK is actually further north than is often realized and has a milder climate compared to other places of similar latitudes, because of the thermohaline circulation bring warmer waters up to and around the UK. The northern hemisphere as a whole will experience warming. Areas effected by the thermohaline will experience general warming due to global warming and some cooling from decreased flows from the thermohaline. If you are interested about specific temperature predictions for specific areas, best to consult the IPCC reports. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 04:43 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
If you take a look at a world map, you'll see that the UK is as far north as parts of the world that regularly see winters as cold as like -30 to -40 celcius, and ocean currents that are dying very quickly are the only things keeping a lot of Europe from seeing winters just like that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Whether or not you consume as much as you possibly can will have literally zero affect on the future of the world. Whether or not you convince every single person you know to reduce their emissions to an absolute minimum also will have zero affect. It simply does not matter, this problem is in the hands of the governments of the world, which are all totally uninterested in solving it, or doing anything more than making themselves look good by pretending they care about it. Any effort being put toward reducing your impact is completely and utterly wasted. This is from 10 pages back, but it's a pretty succinct summary of what I've seen parroted in this thread for a while now, and I loving hate this sentiment. I think you're wrong. I also think you're not only wrong, you're actively harming the planet and the last chances we have of dampening climate change effects in the future. Personal responsibility is the only way we can do something about this. Governments and companies are not operated by drones that eat fossile fuel, but people who at the end of the day want their needs taken care of. Need for a stable environment in decades is pretty high on that list, but is hard to really act upon when you have to pay your bills, so people ignore climate change in favor of things that actually impact them daily. This is bad, but human nature, and it's why corporations often seem to not care, since they as an entity aren't made for that. Telling these people that there is not a single thing they can personally do against climate change is therefore the best way to absolutely ensure that nothing will be done. I get where you're coming from but telling people "We're doomed, there's nothing you can do, what you are doing to stop it is a joke, death is certain" does not make you some enlightened wise man who has understood some underlying truth about our society, it makes you a depressed doomsday preacher who offers nothing to the solution. Of course me reducing my footprint is not going to make a big change individually, but there are hundreds of millions of people who have the luxury to change their consumption in a way that impacts emissions, and if all these people were to do something it would have an impact. Riding a bike doesn't change that much, but voting for progressive politicians has an impact, choosing not to buy a fossile fuel powered car has an impact, choosing not to consume so loving much has an impact. If you stop buying a companies climate-hurting products they will feel it where it hurts, which is their profits, and it can make them re-evaluate their positions. It's already happening, and we need to keep it happening. There are many people who actually want to do something as well, but they're simply not educated about the topic enough to know what is best. These people need to be shown that not only is it possible to change the future, but how it can be done, and that they won't have to live in some hippy commune but can still enjoy most first world luxuries (if not all). Regardless of whether this is actually true, telling people that there is nothing that can be done is just the worst thing to do. If you actually want somewhat of a chance of a positive future, tell people that they can do something, thell them what they can do, and live what you preach so people see that you're doing fine without all the luxuries they've taken for granted.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
All individual actions to reduce emissions are meaningless in the grand scale of the climate threat. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. If you actually want to do something about the climate threat then the energy and time you'd devote to honorable pursuits like living carbon neutral would be much better spent in politics through participation or activism. That is where the future of this planet is ultimatelly going to be decided because for future generations to live good lives there needs to be systematic change.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:All individual actions to reduce emissions are meaningless in the grand scale of the climate threat. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. If you actually want to do something about the climate threat then the energy and time you'd devote to honorable pursuits like living carbon neutral would be much better spent in politics through participation or activism. That is where the future of this planet is ultimatelly going to be decided because for future generations to live good lives there needs to be systematic change. This is cognitive dissonance unfolding in front of our eyes. See? My emissions don't contribute to the problem if uh.. you like look at the GRAND SCHEME of things!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
I hate this traffic jam, but it is the fault of all those other drivers.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 07:43
|
|
