|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not actually criticizing the paper at all, I just find the articles about it (which, aside from the Independent, mostly seem to be coming up from right-leaning publications) kind of eye roll worthy. They mostly amount to saying that climate change actually isn't all that bad as long as we completely reinvent society tomorrow which, I mean, yeah, I think most people in this thread would agree with that. Yeah this is why I've been grumbling to myself about how call to action's response here is technically wrong, the best kind of wrong. 
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
If we can't stop people in the US from literally starving to death and we're 'first world' then we definitely can stop all carbon emissions worldwide by 2030.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Reforestation is not viable carbon capture. In most circumstances yes it is. Maybe if you use a really weird and idiosyncratic definition of 'viable' like you mean it is impractical on a global scale, or it can't sequester enough carbon to offset emissions, but at that point the factoid is irrelevant to Avshalom's project.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Posting on the internet carries a lower risk of accidentally spawning more humans than going out for community activities climate change activists are fuckers while climate change depressives are wankers
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 08:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The worst hot take I've been seeing from shitheads on Climate Change is that its actually good because it's been leading to innovations in energy production 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:The worst hot take I've been seeing from shitheads on Climate Change is that its actually good because it's been leading to innovations in energy production and that is why i thank hitler for nuclear energy every day
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:The worst hot take I've been seeing from shitheads on Climate Change is that its actually good because it's been leading to innovations in energy production I suppose it's positive they moved up from "CO2 is plant food. Why do you hate plants?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
I have a request. Does anyone here have good resources (books, documentaries, online classes, etc.) about desert biomes? I'm especially looking for how desertification and reclamation can happen. I think widespread drought is the big selling point for telling deniers that this is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:I have a request. Does anyone here have good resources (books, documentaries, online classes, etc.) about desert biomes? I'm especially looking for how desertification and reclamation can happen. Except there is no warming. And if there's any warming, it's not too bad. It won't personally impact me. And even if it's bad, it's natural and cyclical, not man-made. You want something that deniers will actually struggle with? High CO2 concentrations in the air we breathe are bad for humans. And even then you'll get arguments like "it'll take centuries for levels to get dangerous", or "that just shows that living in cities is toxic", or "I saw this scienceman video on youtube that says the CO2 levels will naturally level off".
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Uh thank you, but I'm not interested in looking at warming right now, just drought. Like you know Mars is a desert, but it's not warm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:Uh thank you, but I'm not interested in looking at warming right now, just drought. That's more to do with Mars's lovely atmosphere. It is 1.5 times the distance to the sun as earth is, receives 43% of its intensity, yet on the equator it still gets to 35 degrees centigrade. The next step would be to compare it to the moon (no atmosphere) - it gets up to 100 degrees C in the sun and -173 in the shade. The more atmosphere a planet has, the more it both reflects and absorbs the sun's energy, by reflecting it (via clouds, reflective surfaces like ice) and absorbing it (greenhouse gasses, water vapour/clouds) so it lingers and doesn't get as cold at night by retaining a more constant temperature. Deserts, like mars and the moon, get hot because they rarely have clouds which reflect the heat, and get cold at night because they rarely have clouds which help trap the heat of the day into the evening. As to how they are formed, here's something that is happening right now in America: http://e360.yale.edu/features/small-pests-big-problems-the-global-spread-of-bark-beetles - "Bark beetles are a natural part of the conifer forest life cycle, regularly flaring and fading like fireworks. But the scope and intensity in the past two decades is anything but normal, scientists say, in large part because rising temperatures are preventing the widespread winter die-off of beetle larvae, while also enhancing the beetles’ killing power. Not only are the insects expanding into new territory, they’re also hatching earlier and reproducing more frequently. " If you're interested in the ideal temperature to breed plague insects like locusts: http://birdcare.com.au/locusts.htm: For the production of uniform size locusts a constant even temperature of about 35 degrees Celsius (and that includes 4 AM in the morning in winter when the owner is snuggled up in bed) with a humidity of as little as possible is necessary. Heat and dry makes for more insects, more destructive insects, and less resilient plants. Which isn't good for arid areas in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Goffer posted:.... The pine trees around here (San Diego) are dying off in droves. Ditto Oregon, Washington, and BC. This feeds the wildfire intensity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
This thread and other things lead me to try being a vegetarian. Three months now. It's pretty cool. I miss sardines!!!! Thanks everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
if you like eating fish, it's pretty easy to set up an aquaponic system that'll provide enough tilapia for you and your family with a positive environmental impact (however small) it's not going to save the world but it's a step, and fish is so delicious and good for you
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
a few years ago a locust plague swept my region, causing widespread damage to crops. but my property was spared. why? birds. ibises, shrike-thrushes, frogmouths, kookaburras. they were already there because they were welcome there, and all that happened when the locusts came was that the birds had a good season. on other farms they're not welcome, they're shot at and harassed, and those farms were devastated. there is an essential mathematics to taming the land. but we've forgotten how to reach that equilibrium because we're so fixated on the instant fix, the witchcraft of our time, the alchemy, which makes something out of nothing. nothing comes from nothing
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
i stand here among the plagues with my hands raised in supplication, my lands unmarked, my firstborn untouched. love and humility and balance in everything, i say, love and humility and balance in everything; but nobody ever listens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:The worst hot take I've been seeing from shitheads on Climate Change is that its actually good because it's been leading to innovations in energy production Ever since I burned my fingers off I've gotten really good at doing things without fingers!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:if you like eating fish, it's pretty easy to set up an aquaponic system that'll provide enough tilapia for you and your family with a positive environmental impact (however small) Source? Because I just read a LCA placing aquaponic tilapia on par with pork and chicken for global warming potential.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Notice how the climate minimizers never engage with the fact that CCS is a fantasy in that bullshit, worthless paper. It's very important for them to mantain the sanctity of a paper that fuels right wing denialist while contributing nothing we didn't already know. Basically reminds me of people against Medicare for All from the wonk center. Don't let me distract from the masturbation over planting trees as a method of carbon capture though, lol. Hope you're throwing the logs down a pit and ensuring they never decay or burn. call to action fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
call to action posted:Don't let me distract from the masturbation over planting trees as a method of carbon capture though, lol. Hope you're throwing the logs down a pit and ensuring they never decay or burn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
we only need enough time to build cities on mars, really then we can leave this gay earth and
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:we only need enough time to build cities on mars, really be Intergalactically Gay
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
We can adapt the self sustaining habitation technology we'll need for space colonies to one day make Texas livable again
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Source? Because I just read a LCA placing aquaponic tilapia on par with pork and chicken for global warming potential.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Eddy-Baby posted:We can adapt the self sustaining habitation technology we'll need for space colonies to one day make Texas livable again I'm sorry but Texas colony was a failure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5quote:We find that baseline agricultural CO2-equivalent emissions (using Global Warming Potentials with a 100 year time horizon) will be approximately 13 Gton CO2eq/year in 2070, compared to 7.1 Gton CO2eq/year 2000. However, if faster growth in livestock productivity is combined with dedicated technical mitigation measures, emissions may be kept to 7.7 Gton CO2eq/year in 2070. If structural changes in human diets are included, emissions may be reduced further, to 3–5 Gton CO2eq/year in 2070. The total annual emissions for meeting the 2 °C target with a chance above 50 % is in the order of 13 Gton CO2eq/year or less in 2070, for all sectors combined. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
It's weird, most vegetarians/vegans I've known in my life are chubby/fat. Myself, I've been on the keto diet for awhile and don't weigh much more than I did in high school. I rarely eat beef or pork, generally eat fish or chicken (which has the same CO2 equivalent as tomatoes/potatoes per calorie) for protein.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
i am monstrously obese and ambulate by pulling myself along with my prehensile breasts like a slug, it is true
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Goffer posted:That's more to do with Mars's lovely atmosphere. It is 1.5 times the distance to the sun as earth is, receives 43% of its intensity, yet on the equator it still gets to 35 degrees centigrade. The next step would be to compare it to the moon (no atmosphere) - it gets up to 100 degrees C in the sun and -173 in the shade. The more atmosphere a planet has, the more it both reflects and absorbs the sun's energy, by reflecting it (via clouds, reflective surfaces like ice) and absorbing it (greenhouse gasses, water vapour/clouds) so it lingers and doesn't get as cold at night by retaining a more constant temperature. A great post, thank you. It was especially ominous at the end, when the article said all the dead trees would stop absorbing CO2, and would release more as the beetles kill them and they start rotting. It also mentioned that these coniffer forests will transition into oak forests, then shrublands, then grasslands, because of drought killing the seedlings. (Got to me because I loving hate shrubs.) I guess that's one way to observe desertification right before our eyes. If anyone else has any interesting stuff to share about deserts or droughts, I'd really love to see it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
why do you loving hate shrubs shrubs are great! it is possible to manage the destroyed zones and replant them with trees that will maintain the moisture level needed for a proper temperate forest, but you need a functioning epa
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
WaryWarren posted:It's weird, most vegetarians/vegans I've known in my life are chubby/fat. Myself, I've been on the keto diet for awhile and don't weigh much more than I did in high school. I rarely eat beef or pork, generally eat fish or chicken (which has the same CO2 equivalent as tomatoes/potatoes per calorie) for protein. Maybe the cheese/egg/dairy vegetarians are fat, but the vegans I know are rail thin. I’m the only vegan I know who is overweight. Of course I used to weight 100+lbs more so there’s that. I’ve read that Animal Agriculture contributes more to climate change than all transport combined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
call to action posted:Notice how the climate minimizers never engage with the fact that CCS is a fantasy in that bullshit, worthless paper. It's very important for them to mantain the sanctity of a paper that fuels right wing denialist while contributing nothing we didn't already know. Basically reminds me of people against Medicare for All from the wonk center. Give you apparently have no idea how biological sequestration works I appreciate your promise to keep your weird hick opinions on the subject to yourself, thanks. WaryWarren posted:It's weird, most vegetarians/vegans I've known in my life are chubby/fat. Myself, I've been on the keto diet for awhile and don't weigh much more than I did in high school. I rarely eat beef or pork, generally eat fish or chicken (which has the same CO2 equivalent as tomatoes/potatoes per calorie) for protein. If you live in the United States most people generally speaking are fat. I expect that is true of most vegetarians as well as for other demographic groups. Nevertheless, the American Dietetic Association had this to say about vegetarian diets and body mass. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets posted:Obesity
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Maybe the cheese/egg/dairy vegetarians are fat, but the vegans I know are rail thin. Animal agriculture, especially beef, is fuckin huge. Cows not only put a poo poo load of methane into the atmosphere, but convert input matter into beef at the worst possible rate of like any animal humans eat. Chickens are way better, but still worse than plants. I don't think I've ever met a fat vegan, as long as you're careful to stay nourished it's pretty hard to argue in favor of eating meat in any capacity other than "but I wanna".
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
There are lots of benefits to meat eating that take a considerable effort to fix if you don't. Most important imo (and one you should immediately fix): creatine. Not only a fantastic supplement for bodybuilding, there is a huge body of evidence that it's one of the most neuroprotective substances the human body can consume. It protects against degenerative neurological diseases, its deficiency may cause decreased cognition, and it helps with depression symptoms and enhances depression therapy - to the degree that some theorize the increased depression rate seen in vegans is due to the deficiency. It's even shown promise in reversing Parkinson's. (a pretty comprehensive review of the literature here: https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/?PageSpeed=noscript) If this thing weren't produced in minute quantities by the human body when not supplied, it'd be called a vitamin. A normal person avoids a huge deficiency... by eating meat. That's just one example, there are quite a few (known) ones. The fact of the matter is, we are omnivores, and due to the inherent complexity-slash-impossibility of complete nutrition research, we probably never will be able to fully identify the things we need to add to a vegan diet to make it complete. Now, whether we should take that small con for the pro of decreased carbon footprint is a different debate entirely, but there is an undeniable con. Also, meat does taste pretty darn good. Which makes attempting to convert the world from that a bit unrealistic. What we should IMO do is find and push ways to get animal protein for a small carbon budget: stuff like fish etc, where the carbon footprint is about what transport of the food is, which you won't avoid with veggies, either. dex_sda fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Sep 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If you live in the United States most people generally speaking are fat. I expect that is true of most vegetarians as well as for other demographic groups. Nevertheless, the American Dietetic Association had this to say about vegetarian diets and body mass. I expect vegetarians are more conscious of health and have the personal resources and knowledge to pursue it as indicated by them altering their diets in the first place. Meat in itself is not going to make you fat though. The problem is when you do stuff like coat it in bread, soak it in oil and eat a bucket of oil-soaked potatoes with it. Not eating meat ain't gonna do poo poo if you drink tubs of soda and eat pizza every day so in this case it's more correlation than causation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
You're dumb as gently caress if you think planting trees accounts for consequential carbon sequestration, sorry man if you think I'm a hick for knowing that. Trees burn and decay, city slicker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:Also, meat does taste pretty darn good. Which makes attempting to convert the world from that a bit unrealistic. What we should IMO do is find and push ways to get animal protein for a small carbon budget: stuff like fish etc, where the carbon footprint is about what transport of the food is, which you won't avoid with veggies, either. lab meat is comin
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:lab meat is comin Will it be affordable for the masses?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Anyone care to give me a lowdown on the relative pros and cons of nuclear and renewable energy as the technologies exist today? I've had difficulty finding information from sources who don't have skin in the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
call to action posted:You're dumb as gently caress if you think planting trees accounts for consequential carbon sequestration, sorry man if you think I'm a hick for knowing that. Trees burn and decay, city slicker. How much of an impact on climate change has deforestation had, then? Genuine question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2017 19:41
|
|