|
Why build a wall along the US-Mexico border when you can just place a minefield 
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
No doubt we can do some brutal poo poo at our borders, but I'm talking about internal refugees. The people that fled NOLA after Katrina for Houston, Baton Rouge, etc. were and still are truly desperate. Can you imagine if that event were much larger, and permanent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
A solar minefield! That pays for itself. So the Mexicans don't have nearly as much to pay. And that's good, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
call to action posted:No doubt we can do some brutal poo poo at our borders, but I'm talking about internal refugees. The people that fled NOLA after Katrina for Houston, Baton Rouge, etc. were and still are truly desperate. Can you imagine if that event were much larger, and permanent? If only 10% of the population of the United States decided to cross the border into Canada, it would effectively double the population of that country. It's unimaginable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:If only 10% of the population of the United States decided to cross the border into Canada, it would effectively double the population of that country. It's unimaginable. We'd find them room in the tropical islands of the North
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
call to action posted:No doubt we can do some brutal poo poo at our borders, but I'm talking about internal refugees. The people that fled NOLA after Katrina for Houston, Baton Rouge, etc. were and still are truly desperate. Can you imagine if that event were much larger, and permanent? The US already has a perfectly functioning prison labour camp situation going on to resolve situations like these. Just criminalize homelessness a little more than you already and wham, the situation resolves itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
There's a reason cops are becoming more and more militarized.MiddleOne posted:The US already has a perfectly functioning prison labour camp situation going on to resolve situations like these. Just criminalize homelessness a little more than you already and wham, the situation resolves itself. This is all reminding me of the Parable books by Octavia Butler, which have become strangely prescient. It's set in a near-future USA gone to poo poo. Vagrancy laws are made far harsher, with homeless people ending up just like you said. A Christian fundamentalist president gets elected and literally uses the phrase "Help us make America great again" (the books were written in the 90s). There's even an American-Canadian war over resources (not prescient, I hope, but I know Chairmaster or someone was convinced the US will annex Canada). FourLeaf fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
call to action posted:Can you imagine if that event were much larger, and permanent? Also to thread on this post again, we already know that this is happening. Preparations for sea-level rise in Florida are completely inadequate and de-centralized thanks to climate deniers being in office. This is really bad because that means that unlike the Netherlands or Denmark who are already building, setting aside resources and drafting plans to account for everything that is about to happen, Florida will get caught completely unprepared as Miami and some of the most densely populated areas of the state suddenly find themselves in the sea. This is happening within just a few decades and as sea level rise-predictions have shown this year to have been widely over-optimistic its happening sooner than anyone expected. Future generations will never understand that Bugs Bunny gif.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
It's all just a long con to sell before the real state prices collapse, and then buy cheap right before we start pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's all just a long con to sell before the real state prices collapse, and then buy cheap right before we start pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere. I've said it before, but I would absolutely invest my meager retirement in shorting Florida real estate if it were possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:
Any concern that America would invade Canada for it's resources are absurd. American corporations already have effectively just as much access to Canadian resources as any Canadian corporation, there's no need to invade. Also no-one's going to wage a war over the oil sands at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
It would appear that Louisiana is sinking at a rate considered by previous studies to be "the worst-case scenario": The study: http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/groundwork/G337GW/article.htm quote:Coastal Louisiana has experienced catastrophic rates of wetland loss over the past century, equivalent in area to the state of Delaware. Land subsidence in the absence of rapid accretion is one of the key drivers of wetland loss. Accurate subsidence data should therefore form the basis for estimates of and adaptations to Louisiana’s future. Recently, Jankowski et al. (2017) determined subsidence rates at 274 sites along the Louisiana coast. Based on these data we present a new subsidence map and calculate that, on average, coastal Louisiana is subsiding at 9 ± 1 mm yr−1. quote:Our newly calculated present-day subsidence rates are considerably higher than what has been reported by recent studies that relied partly or entirely on tide gauges and that inferred rates of 1–6 mm yr−1 for the past few decades (Kolker et al., 2011; Karegar et al., 2015). As a result, “worst case scenarios” with subsidence rates of 8–10 mm yr−1 that have been used in predictions for the Mississippi Delta throughout the 21st century (Blum and Roberts, 2009; Kim et al., 2009) are in fact reflecting the conditions that exist in coastal Louisiana today. Perhaps worst case scenarios should be considered the new normal in other LECZs worldwide as well. An article about the study: quote:Jimmy Frederick works for the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL). He explains that human activities have changed the natural process of the river adding and removing sediment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
quote:The CRCL says help cannot come soon enough because, on average, Louisiana loses 91 meters of land to the gulf every hour. Since 1932, the state has lost over 3,050 kilometers 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Uh, that has got to be a typo...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Any concern that America would invade Canada for it's resources are absurd. American corporations already have effectively just as much access to Canadian resources as any Canadian corporation, there's no need to invade. Also no-one's going to wage a war over the oil sands at this point. Why not make it official? And why not destroy Canada's social democracy for ideological reasons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Louisiana has been sinking for decades but that's all down to short- sighted river management. The only news is that somebody might do something about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
When America wants to officially annex Canada, it will do so by first lining up its military across the border from major Canadian cities and then asking very politely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
The Canadian Forces will probably just do it for them, since they're a special forces unit for the US military.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Annexation is unnecessary in American commercial imperialism get with the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Annexation is unnecessary in American commercial imperialism get with the 1950s. Already there's open trade, intelligence sharing, and joint military operations. Canada is a separate sovereign state in name only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Uh, that has got to be a typo... I think I've found the source for this statement and I've been trying to calculate it for myself, but I'm hesitant to post the results because they're kind of crazy which makes me think I must be doing the math wrong E: whatever. if I'm wrong, tell me where I googled it and found that the phrase "about a football field of land is lost to the Gulf each hour" is very common in many 2010s articles describing Louisiana and sea level rise. The source seems to be this US Geological Survey study from 2011: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/SIM3164_Pamphlet.pdf quote:These analyses show that coastal Louisiana has undergone a net change in land area of about -1,883 square miles (mi2) from 1932 to 2010. This net change in land area amounts to a decrease of about 25 percent of the 1932 land area. net change from 1932-2010: loss of 1883 mi2 -> loss of 4876.95 km2 loss rate per year from 1985-2010: 16.57 mi2/year -> 42.92 km2/year 42.92 km2/365.25 = 0.11751 km2/day -> 0.004896 km2/hour -> 4895.75 m2/hour or 16.57 mi2/365.25 = 0.04537 mi2/day -> 0.0018903 mi2/hour -> 52,697.4 ft2/hour (American) football field: 57,600 ft2 (5351.2 m2) I am  right now. The "total loss of 3050 km since 1932" and "loss of 91 meters per hour" statements in the first article I posted appear to be false... because the reality is actually worse?
FourLeaf fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Really cool picture. Question. Is desalinazation impractical for financial reasons or other reasons? Also you know how we have pipelines across states for oil? Would such a system of pipes be possible to transport water long distances?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Really cool picture. Desalinization is expensive but if we need to pay for it, we will. It might be necessary to pay a fair chunk of our income to water, I mean, we would, considering the alternative but impossible to know what will happen. We require much more water than we ever would need for oil for that reason long pipelines might be economically unfeasible. We do however have a few very major dam infrastructure schemes to transfer water from one water shed to the other, hydro power being a major output of such activities. Snowy Hydro Scheme, Lesotho Highlands project and for the Sierre Nevadas, surely some I have missed. Seems more like that people will migrate from water scarce regions to different places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Also you know how we have pipelines across states for oil? Would such a system of pipes be possible to transport water long distances? Possible? Sure. Just a hunch that due to the volume needed it's impractical unless you're, like, New York City and have half a century and billions of dollars to spend. And that's only 60 some miles. Oh, and gravity does most of the work. Which, generally, if you want to move that much water there's these things called rivers. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I think I've found the source for this statement and I've been trying to calculate it for myself, but I'm hesitant to post the results because they're kind of crazy which makes me think I must be doing the math wrong Yes, it's losing land rapidly. In fact, picture Louisiana - a big old boot that, no? Well... here's what's defined as 'walkable land' (aka land, not swamp/water) in black - red isn't walkable: Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Really cool picture. Desalination processes are energy-intensive, which is where a chunk of the expense comes in. So, if the energy source isn't nuclear or renewable, then it also increases atmospheric carbon. There was some promising research in greatly reducing the energy usage by filtering saltwater through a carbon nanotube mesh, but I haven't heard anything recent about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I think I've found the source for this statement and I've been trying to calculate it for myself, but I'm hesitant to post the results because they're kind of crazy which makes me think I must be doing the math wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's all just a long con to sell before the real state prices collapse, and then buy cheap right before we start pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere. You joke.. but check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection_(climate_engineering) & especially this bit: "Airliners could use lower-quality sulfur-rich fuels on higher altitudes. That approach would utilize regular flights and enable airlines to use cheaper fuels on long-distance flights. It would require using separate fuel tanks for takeoff and landing in populated areas, due to toxicity and olfactory sensations of sulfur oxides. This can be achieved in many airliners without difficulty, since they already have separate and selectable wing and fuselage fuel tanks." Looks like those 'chemtrail' nutters might not be so far off the mark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
poo poo is going to get very bad the minute sulfates are deployed, they will be blamed for fires/droughts/floods/hurricanes and skirmishes/wars/trade wars will be fought over them
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
call to action posted:poo poo is going to get very bad the minute sulfates are deployed, they will be blamed for fires/droughts/floods/hurricanes and skirmishes/wars/trade wars will be fought over them Actually agree with you here. Since sulfates are theoretically implementable by a single nation, poo poo would really hit the fan if one country said "gently caress it, we're in charge of the climate now."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually agree with you here. Since sulfates are theoretically implementable by a single nation, poo poo would really hit the fan if one country said "gently caress it, we're in charge of the climate now." That country would promptly see itself designated a no-fly zone if it wasn't named the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Really cool picture. Desalination is practical for countries that can afford the energy. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ Pumping huge volumes of it over long distances is less practical, however. If you mean letting it run downhill, yeah we can do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Discussion of land loss and where we get our water are someone meaningless to me when you consider ocean acidification and it's secondary affects will kill us all within 150 years. God: How are your space, nuclear, and clean energy programs coming along? Us:... Ganson fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Ganson posted:Discussion of land loss and where we get our water are someone meaningless to me when you consider ocean acidification and it's secondary affects will kill us all within 150 years. I'm excited to tell you that you will probably be dead long before those 150 years come to pass, happy Christmas!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'm excited to tell you that you will probably be dead long before those 150 years come to pass, happy Christmas! Pro av / post combo here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
I would posit that not caring what happens to the Earth past your own expiration date is up there with general apathy for the greatest ills we deal with today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Ganson posted:Discussion of land loss and where we get our water are someone meaningless to me when you consider ocean acidification and it's secondary affects will kill us all within 150 years. I haven't seen anything like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I haven't seen anything like this. God?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Aren't there phytoplankton which don't use calcium-carbonate shells that will take over once the oceans acidify to point of killing the shelled ones? I think the doomsaying assumes there will be no replacement to the shelled ones. Their shells, btw, are crucial to cloud formation and precipitation. I haven't seen anything on how their loss will mess with precipitation patterns around the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
It's not that the eco-environment can't adapt given time, it's that it can't adapt at the pace that the ocean is acidifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 21:02
|
|