|
Conspiratiorist posted: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. I hope the descendants of jellyfish are better caretakers of the planet than we were.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted: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. Is this actually true, though? I've read that that will happen due to phytoplankton's calcium carbonate shells dissolving -- killing them -- but aren't there phytoplankton that don't have such shells and which can take over? I haven't seen that addressed in context of the doomsaying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Yeah that's a really out there scenario for the most alarmed. Not sure if it's right to say alarmist. Hard too believe water - based photosynthesis will die off to that extent because it's such a successful metabolic pathway that it's literally taken over the earth 's surface.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah that's a really out there scenario for the most alarmed. Not sure if it's right to say alarmist. Why is it hard to believe that something which has happened no less than 3 times in the past, could happen again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
I am speculating that there could be bioengineering of a microbe that would take the most efficient path for photosynthesis and oxygen processing if there were a profit motive for it. Not as a fixit overall, but as something that could be applied to domiciles or commercial properties
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Rime posted:Why is it hard to believe that something which has happened no less than 3 times in the past, could happen again? Meh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
I'll bet the dinosaurs were saying all this wacky bioengineering stuff too right before they bit it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted: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. As I understand it, the "information" about how unreliable Chinese statistics are comes mostly from US- or other Western institutions with an axe to grind. In my eyes, even if they only say the truth, they could still be wrong or biased (and probably are.) If you remove this propaganda-factor, Chinese numbers suddenly look a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Libluini posted:As I understand it, the "information" about how unreliable Chinese statistics are comes mostly from US- or other Western institutions with an axe to grind. In my eyes, even if they only say the truth, they could still be wrong or biased (and probably are.) No it comes from the fact that they are and have always been completely unreliable. It really is that simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
They are apparently reliable enough for people to do stuff like estimate the number who died during the great leap forward, and the gender balance ratio, though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They are apparently reliable enough for people to do stuff like estimate the number who died during the great leap forward, and the gender balance ratio, though? Yeah, but you have to understand: Chinese statistics are only reliable if they show something bad. If the numbers show something is Good for China, they're obviously wrong. Like I mean straightforward people like the CIA are telling us this, how could they be lying to us???
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is good in its being true but his proscriptions are just typical smug "do better people" i question their efficacy but i think they are generally nice things to strive for. though it seems to me that only international cooperation at an unprecedented and perhaps humanly impossible scale would give us a chance to fix the planet. the system is not gonna change from the bottom up. the culture of competition basically guarantees that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They are apparently reliable enough for people to do stuff like estimate the number who died during the great leap forward, and the gender balance ratio, though? You'd compare a simply tally to complex economical measurements that can skew drastically if even one variable has been collected improperly? Like that's not even getting into the motivations third-world (and hell, first-world too) countries have to manufacture numbers for political reasons. Environmental data is no different in this regard. The combination of corruption and politically controlled research institutions does not make for reliable outputs. Some will be on point, while others will be dramatically off. It doesn't even have to be intentional as the Nigeria GDP rebasing of a few years back proved. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Oh, I missed the part about it vanishing from the atmosphere too. Yeah that's silly at best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:You'd compare a simply tally to complex economical measurements that can skew drastically if even one variable has been collected improperly? Like that's not even getting into the motivations third-world (and hell, first-world too) countries have to manufacture numbers for political reasons. Environmental data is no different in this regard. The combination of corruption and politically controlled research institutions does not make for reliable outputs. Some will be on point, while others will be dramatically off. It doesn't even have to be intentional as the Nigeria GDP rebasing of a few years back proved. Neither of those things I mentioned are simple tallies, not that conducting a census on a billion people can be called simple anyway. In terms of chinese environmental statistics, sure, they ~could~ be made up, but people have been using statistics of Chinese steel production and fossil fuel consumption to produce alternative estimates of Chinese GDP growth for ages. Analysis have been using the slowdown in Chinese energy consumption to claim that China is overstating its growth. So you wanna turn around and say China has been understating energy consumption? Better tell those analysts then. It would seem to me that the Chinese government, if they wanted to lie about all this, would be more inclined to *overstate* these figures than understate them. They must have been playing the long game indeed to project an illusion of what many in the west conclude is a weak economy just to embarrass Donald Trump. Stuff like closing coal power plants and rapidly expanding solar plants are real anyway, you can see them from space. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-satellite-images-show-chinas-giant-solar-panel-expansion-gobi-desert-1508966 Meanwhile... https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/870615261409189888
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
They are dedicated to making us the enemies of the planet and to sparking a global war. Man I've been kind of struggling with depression lately and let me tell you, the past day or so and this thread and the reality it lays out have not been helping
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Even US intelligence knows how loving screwed things are going to get. http://www.npr.org/2017/06/01/531099069/u-s-intelligence-warns-against-security-implications-of-leaving-paris-accord NPR posted:KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
That kind of rhetoric is so unhelpful. "We were going to land the troops here but we found the beach was missing" or "We need air support! They can't send it, the airfield is flooded by rising sea levels!!" That's just dumb. Those aren't going to be issues. I can't wait to hear those things quoted on some right wing media site and laughed at because they deserve to be laughed at.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
TildeATH posted: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. India and Pakistan nuking one another is the free space on the nuclear war BINGO card.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
I can't see why countries don't just nuke each other. We are all gonna die anyway better get it over with quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I can't see why countries don't just nuke each other. We are all gonna die anyway better get it over with quickly. Because thankfully the leaders of the world are not all sadbrains and do actually enjoy life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Okay 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:That kind of rhetoric is so unhelpful. If you think those are non-issues, I have to say quite frankly that you don't know much about warfare. Before you humiliate yourself further, go read up on some amphibious landings and what problems they faced, or about all the times when just bad weather was enough to prevent air support. I'm also interested in how you will get aircraft into the air without airfields. Magic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Libluini posted:If you think those are non-issues, I have to say quite frankly that you don't know much about warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think the objection is that a beach is very unlikely to just disappear, more like it's going to move inland - and that in both cases, this is unlikely to happen on the timescale of military operations. The greater strategic issues of climate change that are pointed are an issue, but I don't really see how it can become a tactical issue. You know, I first wanted to write down this long text explaining why this issue could potentially cause huge military disasters, but I realized that would come with the danger of an American general reading this on SA. So instead I just say: Yes, yes you're 100% right. It would be no issue whatsoever. Edit: In fact, hypothetical US-general reading this, please disregard my earlier post, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
edit: nvm vvv let the record show iiiiiii restrained myself StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Libluini posted:You know, I first wanted to write down this long text explaining why this issue could potentially cause huge military disasters, but I realized that would come with the danger of an American general reading this on SA. So instead I just say: Yes, yes you're 100% right. It would be no issue whatsoever. Just elaborate. You know you want to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Libluini posted:You know, I first wanted to write down this long text explaining why this issue could potentially cause huge military disasters, but I realized that would come with the danger of an American general reading this on SA. So instead I just say: Yes, yes you're 100% right. It would be no issue whatsoever. Please do elaborate on how our continual satellite coverage of the earth could fail to notice the disappearance of a beach over a couple of decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Please do elaborate on how our continual satellite coverage of the earth could fail to notice the disappearance of a beach over a couple of decades. Yes please, I am a hypothetical general and would love to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
So, I'm actually worried about what the dropping out of the Paris Accord means for the US and the planet itself. Can someone give me the hard facts? Is there anyway to block dropping out? Could the states choose to follow the accord guidelines even though Trump dropped out? Is this mostly symbolic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Jesus this thread is like a dump for every depressed goon on the forums. Let's see if we can get it back on track. Does anyone know of a full list of cities and states that have said "gently caress you" to Trump and the GOP and pledged to fully support the Paris agreement? Democrats have a lot of power at the city level, so if we can't get anything done at the Federal we can at least push as many states/cities as possible to implement the Paris Agreement on their own. The Trump/GOP war on the environment is catastrophic, but there are still many ways the rest of us can make a difference and mitigate the damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Not sure about cities, but the states that are officially pledging support for Paris as part of the US Climate Alliance are California, Washington, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Oregon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Not sure about cities, but the states that are officially pledging support for Paris as part of the US Climate Alliance are California, Washington, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Oregon. Thanks! I notice Maryland isn't on that list, but that's what we get for sleeping with our pants down in 2014 and allowing him to be elected. I'll be calling and writing my rep and senator (both Democrats) on Monday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
My Face When posted:So, I'm actually worried about what the dropping out of the Paris Accord means for the US and the planet itself. Can someone give me the hard facts? Is there anyway to block dropping out? Could the states choose to follow the accord guidelines even though Trump dropped out? Is this mostly symbolic? The Paris accord is irrelevant as far as the future of the planet itself, nobody seriously believes that it's an adequate level of action to really mean much in the long run, regardless of whether or not America participates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
It is a better thing than no one agreeing climate change is an issue imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Thanks! I notice Maryland isn't on that list, but that's what we get for sleeping with our pants down in 2014 and allowing him to be elected. I'll be calling and writing my rep and senator (both Democrats) on Monday. It's worth pointing out that this is really a largely symbolic gesture, although obviously it's still good. The states that are directly involved in this all have fairly good environmental records, so this is basically a bunch of clean states pledging to continue doing what they're doing. It's telling that the states making this pledge are something like 35% of US GDP while only making up around 14% of total US CO2 emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
My Face When posted:So, I'm actually worried about what the dropping out of the Paris Accord means for the US and the planet itself. Can someone give me the hard facts? Is there anyway to block dropping out? Could the states choose to follow the accord guidelines even though Trump dropped out? Is this mostly symbolic? People were worried that developing nations would default on Paris because "if the only country with 200 years of solid industry uninterrupted by wars and plagues and things wasn't down to doing its part for the biosphere, why should we, a society that desperately needs power and industry to pick us up off the floor, do ours?" That's an ignorant (and bigoted) assessment to make, because developing nations are well aware they're taking the brunt of the damage from climate change and not so deluded as we are to think they're independent of the natural world. Instead, at least in a preliminary assessment, it looks like the rest of the world is gearing up as a bloc to ostracise the United States on the grounds that we're no longer a part of reality, which is quite frankly the least of what we deserve. In any case, the Accord is entirely voluntary, with no mechanism for enforcement or retention, and since it was never ratified (gee I wonder why, Congress) we can basically pretend (domestically) that we were never a part of it. See the US Climate Alliance above for proof that at least some US States are drat well going to try, though, and expect things to get super weird here if the Trump administration tries to restrain them from even that. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Yes please, I am a hypothetical general and would love to know. Don't change horseface man midstream If you start pissing on the guy next to Trompf he gets real mad
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:Don't change horseface man midstream Bullshit Trump loves it when you piss on people. The accelerationist in me is happy to see the Republicans finally go full Climate Change Denial. None of this kid glove nonsense where they disagreed but still allowed things to happen. Look at all the news agencies and politicians who feel emboldened to really say the dumbest poo poo about how dumb they are. Maybe it will matter come day...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's worth pointing out that this is really a largely symbolic gesture, although obviously it's still good. The states that are directly involved in this all have fairly good environmental records, so this is basically a bunch of clean states pledging to continue doing what they're doing. It's telling that the states making this pledge are something like 35% of US GDP while only making up around 14% of total US CO2 emissions. Jesus, what are the states that make up the rest of US O2 emissions? Texas? Florida? I get that the state legislatures are GOP controlled nightmares, but Democrats hold control over most of Texas's major cities so perhaps improvements can be made there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 00:46
|
|