|
The Belgian posted:Sure, but how is this going to result in theor governments using nuclear weapons? Climate change might increasy internal dissent, trigger civil war,. destabilize the government as it's doing in the Middle East & Africa. But why would this result in the use of nuclear weapons? They nuke their own people to achieve?? I could imagine a scenario where India and Pakistan use nuclear weapons against each other, or India and China, or China and Russia, as a result of climate-induced civil strife. I'd imagine if the states self-destructed the USA and other powers would try to secure the nuclear weapons and do a decent job of it, so no, I wouldn't imagine that nukes would be used internally whether against rebels or factions in a civil war, but I could see it happening as part of an escalation.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
The Belgian posted:Sure, but how is this going to result in theor governments using nuclear weapons? Climate change might increasy internal dissent, trigger civil war,. destabilize the government as it's doing in the Middle East & Africa. But why would this result in the use of nuclear weapons? They nuke their own people to achieve?? Wars over resources. For example, India and Pakistan, being neighbors, would have joint control over the rivers and lakes between their borders. Same thing for fishing rights and things like that. I don't know the actual geography of the the area, but imagine that India dams up a river to make a reservoir to feed their drought stricken cities. Now Pakistani farmers downstream have no water and dying crops. Imagine India and Pakistan have a treaty to only pump a certain amount of water from an underground aquifer that sits under both countries, and India decides to ignore the treaty and pump all they can since their farmland in dying. Imagine Pakistan sends fishing fleets into India's coastal waters because they are desperate for food. Water and fish resources are two things that cross international borders so you often have joint control, they are two things that billions of people rely on to survive, and they are two things that will be hosed over by climate change. Imagine a best case scenario, where say India is pumping a shared aquifer dry, so Pakistan decides to build a desalination plant. Pakistani citizens would still be livid about having to spend the money to do that. Little fights are going to escalate into wars as things get worse. Please note that I have no Idea if India and Pakistan share any rivers or aquifers, its just an example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
You don't have to imagine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zangmu_Dam
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Did this get brought up in today's well of bad news? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/mass-extinction-humans-causing-earth-deaths-end-times-warning-a7765856.html quote:Extinction rates for birds, mammals and amphibians are similar to the five global mass-extinction events of the past 500 million years that probably resulted from meteorite impacts, massive volcanism and other cataclysmic forces. quote:In one of a series of papers in Nature, a team of international scientists wrote: “The ever-increasing and unprecedented extent and impact of human activities on land and in the oceans over the past few centuries has dramatically reduced global biodiversity. I really cannot understand how people can view most other life on Earth as holding less inherent value than cramming another 4 Billion human lives into squalor and horror. This world has gone mad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I didn't even know that there were people in this thread or elsewhere who didn't think that India and Pakistan were going to exchange nukes pretty soon. It seems pretty inevitable to me, considering the political and geographical situation of the two countries when faced with the consequences of climate change in that part of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
It's their fault for not adapting. You cannot prevent global warming. You adapt to it. I say in an authoritative tone to mask the fact I don't know what the gently caress I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Rime posted:Did this get brought up in today's well of bad news? Um that's what all species do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:I don't know what the gently caress I'm talking about. That's obvious. Rime posted:Did this get brought up in today's well of bad news? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:That's obvious. One day, you'll come to discover and understand humor. Then, perhaps, pleasant interaction with fellow people will follow. Until that day, please remain in your corner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:or the great oceanic conveyer belt grinding to a halt I'm interested in this, surely as the ocean warms it will become more active? More energy in a system=more movement? Does anyone have any not-to-technical things to read about the effect of climate change on large ocean currents?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
yaffle posted:I'm interested in this, surely as the ocean warms it will become more active? More energy in a system=more movement? Does anyone have any not-to-technical things to read about the effect of climate change on large ocean currents? Before the ocean warms it will be filled with vast quantities of ice-cold water, the frozen reserves of which sit right beside the conveyor. This kills the conveyor. Current research indicates the North Atlantic is already slowing rapidly and may stop within a decade, but nobody knows how bad it really is yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
yaffle posted:I'm interested in this, surely as the ocean warms it will become more active? More energy in a system=more movement? Does anyone have any not-to-technical things to read about the effect of climate change on large ocean currents? Temperature differences are what cause long-distance movement. Like if your house is heated but you open a door in winter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Temperature differences are what cause long-distance movement. Like if your house is heated but you open a door in winter. Yeah, it's all about differentials, and about "system maintains the energy balance but changes its form" which would seem inconsequential globally but problematic in practical terms given that we built all our cities and stuff where we expected things to be colder and warmer than they would be if the current forms of these systems happened to change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:So where do you want to set the boundary at? 1B+? There are definitely lots of scenarios that put us at 1B+ deaths and a lot of them can be affected by human action. There will be much larger zones of uninhabitability across the globe, and they will cause massive human migrations because a lot of them will be inhabited. Coincidentally, a lot of the first regions to suffer are in North Africa and the Middle East. I hear we're dying to take in refugees from there. I'm just being pedantic here, but I'd say it's a question of time. If we're talking about a billion deaths attributable to warming over the next century then that's obviously horrifying, but it's not going to have a meaningful impact on the global population over the long term. I'm not trying to downplay the massive human costs of climate change, I just think that using terms like "extinction" and "mass die off" mischaracterizes the problem, at least if we're talking about humans. Humans aren't going to go extinct and the global population isn't going to be cut in half by 2100 (at least not thanks to climate change). quote:You realize recent models are talking about 8C warming in urban areas right? Plants don't do photosynthesis above 40C and humans don't live past the 100% humidity equivalent of 35C. You should probably recalibrate your expectations in terms of the magnitude of expected changes, and this doesn't even begin to touch on the upscaling of expected sea level rise that will destroy places like Bangladesh. I do understand these things and I've made posts to this effect in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Check out this recent lecture by Nate Hagens for a nice overview of our ecological predicament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUSpsT6Oqrg&t=6s
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
yaffle posted:I'm interested in this, surely as the ocean warms it will become more active? More energy in a system=more movement? Does anyone have any not-to-technical things to read about the effect of climate change on large ocean currents? Atlantic Conveyor shutting down means the North Atlantic freezes (or rather, gets balmy for a while until global temperature catches up) while the tropics broil. It effectively puts a stop to long-distance exchange of energy across the ocean, disrupting its ecology and further promoting the creation of dead zones. But just as with the acidification, jellyfish will love it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
yaffle posted:I'm interested in this, surely as the ocean warms it will become more active? More energy in a system=more movement? Does anyone have any not-to-technical things to read about the effect of climate change on large ocean currents? Energy transfer is dependent on the energy gradient, "greater differences in energy", the greater the energy transfer and activity required. While the earth system is getting more energetic, the poles are expected to warm disproportionally with the rest of the planet. In some instances the energy gradient could shrink. A fundamental truth is that energy will be transport from the tropics to the poles. For the most port, the wherefores and hows are a bit confused at this point, anyone feel free to correct. Some things we do know: The hadley cell is expanding and as a consequence the subtropical ridges (northern and southern hemispheres) are moving poleward. And as a direct consequence of this, the midlatitude storm tracks are also moving poleward, for the most part. Not really what you were asking about but ocean current really aren't my thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
For the hard science aspect, yes, according to data published in 2015 the AMOC has already slowed by 20%: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncl....iflscience.com A new study published this year demonstrates that continued warming will result in the collapse of the north sub-polar gyre, the impact of which would be an almost-instantaneous shutdown of the AMOC: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14375 This second link is good because it spends a fair bit of time explaining in relatively understandable terms how it is that warming oceans may ultimately disrupt a warming current. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
The answer is obviously jellyfish burritos and jellyfish biomass reactors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
Some minor good news: From Climate Killer to Climate Saviour It looks like China will overshoot the Pariser agreement by a large margin. They've also been busy closing thousands of factories. Especially coal (1,3 million jobs gone) and steel industry (0,5 million jobs gone) have been reduced by a large amount. They're also still massively investing into renewables: In 2016 alone, China built more solar- and wind power plants than the entire rest of the world combined! The best part: Chinas economy was and is still growing through all of this massive reform program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
China >>> USA
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
The claim that large energy infrastructure projects are a drag on GDP has always been an ideological one. Republicans would prefer not to admit that any government spending might stimulate the economy, and their donors would prefer to keep legacy energy systems in place because they own those systems. As always, it's a mistake to assume any of these Republican arguments were made in good faith though many footsoldiers certainly believe them now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Republicans would prefer not to admit that any government spending might stimulate the economy Except defense spending, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:China >>> USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKF0IYwhrjk
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Some minor good news: From Climate Killer to Climate Saviour This is good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Some minor good news: From Climate Killer to Climate Saviour So I was going to come in here and lmao about the credibility of NBS China measurements but the actual report to which this article refers actually includes a drat-near-full-page caveat (page 24) on the dubious reliability of Chinese statistics in this realm. It also sourced consumption/production stats from a bunch of external and international agencies, so, way to go I guess! Take anything with the phrase "by 2020" in it with a handful of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Whole mess of rad videos here: Arctic Circle, 2016 assembly Sample: https://vimeo.com/206578787
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:So I was going to come in here and lmao about the credibility of NBS China measurements but the actual report to which this article refers actually includes a drat-near-full-page caveat (page 24) on the dubious reliability of Chinese statistics in this realm. It also sourced consumption/production stats from a bunch of external and international agencies, so, way to go I guess! Yeah, anyone who believes anything China says about anything is... naive, to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Calving imminent
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yeah, anyone who believes anything China says about anything is... naive, to say the least. Sure, statistics can be unreliable, but cut this poo poo out. The way things are going, I'd prefer Europe siding with China to Europe siding with the US. Because the latter looks more and more like Europe is chained to a fast sinking anchor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Calving imminent I'm more excited by this than I should be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Sure, statistics can be unreliable, but cut this poo poo out. The way things are going, I'd prefer Europe siding with China to Europe siding with the US. Because the latter looks more and more like Europe is chained to a fast sinking anchor. It depends on what you consider to be an anchor because it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Either a recalcitrant political obstinance backed up by extremely dependable data (though who knows how long that will last) or a blustery set of positive rhetorical compliance, guaranteed by extremely dubious, subjective statistics. Both are bad options 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
I hope everyone is excited about death! In other news, Arctic sea ice extent is now at 5th lowest; 2016 and 2015 are the only two drastically lower of those 5, which also include 2011 and 2010. 2012 was at about the same extent as yesterday still on June 7th, yet fell rapidly and passed all but 2016 on June 11th, which it passed on June 28th. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
To what level does the atmosphere have to change before it can accommodate those large prehistoric insects. I want dragonflys the size of pigeons and spiders and scorpions the size of dogs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:To what level does the atmosphere have to change before it can accommodate those large prehistoric insects. I want dragonflys the size of pigeons and spiders and scorpions the size of dogs. Insects can't compete with birds and, well, basically everything else, so you'd also need a complete collapse of higher order life. Which, seeing as how things are going, looks good for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
parcs posted:Check out this recent lecture by Nate Hagens for a nice overview of our ecological predicament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUSpsT6Oqrg&t=6s this is good in its being true but his proscriptions are just typical smug "do better people"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Insects can't compete with birds and, well, basically everything else, so you'd also need a complete collapse of higher order life. We'd need far more oxygen in the atmosphere however, and we're heading towards the opposite due to ocean acidification effects (deoxygenation).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:To what level does the atmosphere have to change before it can accommodate those large prehistoric insects. I want dragonflys the size of pigeons and spiders and scorpions the size of dogs. If I recall correctly those insects could only exist because of an highly increased amount of oxygen in the atmosphere (which also led to cool/terrifying effects like lightning causing explosions during thunderstorms). So that probably won't be happening any time soon. e: beaten!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:If I recall correctly those insects could only exist because of an highly increased amount of oxygen in the atmosphere (which also led to cool/terrifying effects like lightning causing explosions during thunderstorms). So that probably won't be happening any time soon. Those lightning explosions sound metal as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
No joke, one of the long-term outcomes of the ocean dying due to acidification is the extinction of all higher order life as the atmosphere depletes its oxygen. It's not something that will happen in a timespan that matters to living humans (as it'd occur over a couple thousands of years), but that's how serious of an extinction event we're looking at.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 05:17
|
|