|
Thug Lessons posted:Not they're not. US agricultural land use peaked in the 1949 and has fallen ever since, freeing up more and more land for forests and other wildlands. Water use from the Colorado, the most-abused river in the US, peaked in the 1990s and has fallen ever since. And you can list a whole other slew of environmental issues here, like air pollution, landfills and refuse, the ozone layer, all of which are getting better. The environmental movement just operates under a sort of completely unsubstantiated myth where everything ecological is always getting worse, and it's heartbreaking to see these pernicious lies just dominate the discourse with no challenge at all. what an insanely retarded proxy for environmental degradation, "percent of land used for agriculture". like literal holy poo poo. i guess the difference is that i actually spend time outside and see what's happening instead of looking at libertarian charts? it's very telling you don't actually engage with the reefs i keep talking about, because the condition of ocean ecosystems doesn't exactly line up with your talking points Thug Lessons posted:I didn't cherry-pick anything. I took exactly the examples he stated i picked forests and oceans and you didn't talk about oceans at all and seem to assume that more intensive use of agricultural land is better for forests while presenting no actual data re: forestry (??) oh, and since thuggie here wants to take the amero-centric take, here's a look at guatemala: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PavA4rUypE call to action fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Oct 31, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
You're incorrect. Exploiting less land for human use is, by definition, beneficial for the natural environment. It means "nature" (I dislike the term) gets to use that land for forests, prairies, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're incorrect. Exploiting less land for human use is, by definition, beneficial for the natural environment. It means "nature" (I dislike the term) gets to use that land for forests, prairies, and so on. just to remind you, you were talking about agricultural use. not human use. please explain the link between "this land is no longer used for farming" -> "this land is now a forest" and again, very telling that you have to cherry pick US data because brazil, meat source for america and the world, doesn't exactly help your deforestation talking point
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The actual cause of environmental degradation in the third world is the cost of development itself, (coal-fired power plants, expropriation of the wild for agricultural use, etc.), that the developed countries no longer have to pay because they're rich enough to avoid it. Yes that's a good point. they're just developing really hard. Meanwhile, a supervisor in Bangladesh dumps a barrel of old textile dyes into nearby toxic fill. He thinks to himself: this is the cost of developing. Soon will be the day when the global capitalists who own this factory find a way to dispose of all these chemicals safely. They just need to be a little more profitable. Soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
call to action posted:just to remind you, you were talking about agricultural use. not human use. The vast majority of human land use is in agriculture. The other possible human use, habitation, makes up about 2-3% of land use worldwide. US forests reached a low point around 1980, and have increased ever since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
call to action posted:and again, very telling that you have to cherry pick US data because brazil, meat source for america and the world, doesn't exactly help your deforestation talking point Brazil is absolutely not the meat source of America. America produces its own meat and exports nearly as much as it imports. You have no idea what you're talking about and just spew nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:Yes that's a good point. they're just developing really hard. I guess you're right. Let's just stop this whole Bangladeshi industrialization program and kill off the excess population it's supporting. It's the environmentally right thing to do, because an imaginary man is dumping a bucket of dye
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
trees
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
how much do you get paid to post TL?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
I get tradable carbon credits for all my posts because I post instead of writing it on paper, saving energy I would have otherwise used writing letters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
for every post i make, an epiphany comes to me in a dream. that's my payment
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I have read the literature on permafrost feedbacks. All of them estimate Arctic emissions will be dwarfed by human emissions. In the worst case scenario, the Arctic permafrost might emit 160 GtCO2e cumulatively by 2100. Humans emit 40 GtCO2 every year, and that's excluding methane, N2O, CFCs, etc. I honestly think you just read news articles and collapse porn and that's where you get these ideas that Arctic permafrost is going to kill us all. 160 Gt as the upper bound? Schuur & Abbot (2011) perform a survey finding 306 ± 74 Gt cumulative by 2100 : http://www.junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/nature-comment_permafrost.pdf posted:The survey was filled out this year by 41 international scientists, listed as authors here, who publish on various aspects of permafrost. The results are striking. Collectively, we hypothesize that the high warming scenario will degrade 9–15% of the top 3 metres of permafrost by 2040, increasing to 47–61% by 2100 and 67–79% by 2300 (these ranges are the 95% confidence intervals around the group’s mean estimate). The estimated carbon release from this degradation is 30 billion to 63 billion tonnes of carbon by 2040, reaching 232 billion to 380 billion tonnes by 2100 and 549 billion to 865 billion tonnes by 2300. These values, expressed in CO2 equivalents, combine the effect of carbon released as both CO2 and as CH4. I kinda wonder what sources you have been reading. Of note is that Schuur & Abbot (2011) also uses a conservative (by 2017 standards) GWP100 estimate of 25 for methane. Our current remaining budget from AR5's 2C scenario is around 400Gt, so ~45 - 95% has already been taken by one natural feedback alone. You argue that humans emit 40 Gt CO2e per year while ignoring the fact that every scenario except RCP 8.5 have us lowering our yearly CO2e emission rate in the near future (which we will almost certainly do given the current state of renewables and electrification). And this is only from one unaccounted for feedback. Much like other climate change deniers and doubters, you sit back and try to pick at and denigrate one feedback at a time while ignoring the cascading effect that they have in tandem. Shall we rehash ESAS methane plumes again so you can pick apart at it? Shall we rehash tropical rainforest carbon sources so we can do the same exercise there? Shall we go over carbon pulses as soil is heated far beyond AR5's land use estimates? Shall we go over the revisions to methane's GWP since AR5? Shall we go over how AR5 calculates ECS?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Also since your upper-bound estimate for permafrost CO2e release is well below the 95% confidence interval of what a loving survey reported, I'm gonna go ahead and ask you to cite any numbers you pull out of your rear end in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Instead of giving out candy I gave out dvds of The Road
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Anyone who doesn't realise agricultural land use is a good proxy for terrestrial habitat degradation/destruction is a waste of oxygen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 08:05
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Most of the really bad habitat and ecology destruction is not happening in wealthy first world countries
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Most of the really bad habitat and ecology destruction is not happening in wealthy first world countries yeah and in the shitholes we outsource our environmental issues to habitat loss is to a very large extent from agriculture
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
drat I hate it when some retard comes in here and drops irrelevant facts like US land use percentages like some denialist gently caress, then tells me I shouldn't feel bad about the death of the ocean because I snorkeled three times ever Please suck the chili right out of my hole, we ran the last set of denialists out and we'll run you out too call to action fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
I can't wait till more and more people start to realize the futility of climate change, and the hostility seen here begins to permeate into every aspect of our real lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Improved land use practices probably wouldn't be a bad thing in Brazil, but let's be honest as long as its government absolutely doesn't care about environmental damage or hell even the most basic welfare of its population, nothing is going to change. It is also too late even if it changed tomorrow. Also, there is a point where you can say that improved practices is great and everything, but that the damage had been done and those rain-forests aren't coming back. We are long past the point where warming can easily be handled with some tweaks, and if anything it looks like cumulative emissions is only going to snowball here on out. We hosed up big time, and part of any healing process is accepting that and then to realistically plan for the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
I'm surprised that not more people are freaking out over the fact that the air, that we all share and can't avoid existing in, is slowly being poisoned by ever-increasing CO2 emissions to the point that we will feel it and it will retard our cognitive ability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm surprised that not more people are freaking out over the fact that the air, that we all share and can't avoid existing in, is slowly being poisoned by ever-increasing CO2 emissions to the point that we will feel it and it will retard our cognitive ability. We’ll just all wear masks hooked up to oxygen concentrators. Mad max fury road is a documentary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm surprised that not more people are freaking out over the fact that the air, that we all share and can't avoid existing in, is slowly being poisoned by ever-increasing CO2 emissions to the point that we will feel it and it will retard our cognitive ability. I do think by the mid-century there is going to growing fear over the issue especially since we are almost certainly going to be living indoors to a significantly larger degree . Right now, most people still rely on normal air exchange to essentially regulate the amount of CO2 in their houses, what happens when the atmosphere only has more and more co2 in it? I am sure certain (rich) people can afford CO2 scrubbers, but yeah you can obviously see the issue here with just "opening all the windows" when it is somewhere between -40f/120f outside in March.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm surprised that not more people are freaking out over the fact that the air, that we all share and can't avoid existing in, is slowly being poisoned by ever-increasing CO2 emissions to the point that we will feel it and it will retard our cognitive ability. It's going to become uncomfortable before it becomes dangerous and seriously impairing, so I think in general there's a sense that we'll deal with it before it gets too bad (  ).For real, though, home/office CO2 scrubbers are going to be a thing within our lives unless there are drastic changes. Wealthy homes will probably start getting them long before it's necessary once the threat enters the public consciousness and people with too much money start worrying about their kids. I bet it ends up being a perk at higher end professional workplaces and stores/restaurants too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's going to become uncomfortable before it becomes dangerous and seriously impairing, so I think in general there's a sense that we'll deal with it before it gets too bad ( There almost certainly is going to be a class/race breakdown as well though since you are going to have a massive underclass by mid-century, and I am sure is there going to plenty of neurotic behavior surrounding scrubbers. Yeah, humanity is going to survive but 1960s/1970s-era Scifi is starting to feel less ridiculous (also, I do think red meat one way or another is going to become a luxury item.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:Individual action is bunk. Collective action is bunk. Feeling any emotions whatsoever over your own personal contributions towards climate change in either a positive or negative light is dumb. Judging other individual people based on their actions is also dumb, unless they have a net worth of over a billion dollars or control of a major corporation. Man, skellington party inna house ITT today howdy howdy howdy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Indoor CO2 concentrations tend to be significantly higher than outdoor ones so it's less climate change and more lovely building practices potentially impairing peoplequote:“In surveys of elementary school classrooms in California and Texas, average CO2 concentrations were above 1,000 ppm, a substantial proportion exceeded 2,000 ppm, and in 21% of Texas classrooms peak CO2 concentration exceeded 3,000 ppm.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Truckin and Fuckistan
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Indoor CO2 concentrations tend to be significantly higher than outdoor ones so it's less climate change and more lovely building practices potentially impairing people This is why Trump won :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Indoor CO2 concentrations tend to be significantly higher than outdoor ones so it's less climate change and more lovely building practices potentially impairing people Yeah, the issue is that significantly higher outdoor concentrations are only going to further negatively impact indoor conditions. Also, there is a certain point in the future where the atmosphere inch into the range it has a direct effect. 930 pm is the point you start having increased fatigued levels/cognitive impairment. (Also, as I said, class/race is absolutely going to be a huge factor in exposure.) So yet again, great job Texas. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
When I read about breathing impairment due to co2 levels I get a psychosomatic sense that it's harder to breath right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:
This is going to sound really naive, but.... Would having a house full of green things growing everywhere have a similar air cleaning effect? *edit* seems at least partially yes? https://phys.org/news/2013-07-air-hidden-indoor.html poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
so many new posts but no one has answered the only question that matters are we dead yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:so many new posts but no one has answered the only question that matters we've all been dead for quite some time, the reckoning of the exact date of death varies in the literature. The popular consensus at this time in the broader academic sphere is that we all died on November 9th, 2016, but there's a growing contingent of scientists headed up by some luminaries at the CalTech Physics department claiming June 16, 2015, also known as "Escalator Day", as the point of our collective demise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, there is a point where you can say that improved practices is great and everything, but that the damage had been done and those rain-forests aren't coming back. We are long past the point where warming can easily be handled with some tweaks, and if anything it looks like cumulative emissions is only going to snowball here on out. Rainforests, mangroves, etc... can rebound extremely quickly if we just gave a drat about taking care of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Rainforests, mangroves, etc... can rebound extremely quickly if we just gave a drat about taking care of them. No they can't, not to the apex condition they were at previously. If you don't care about the quality of the trees or ecosystems, sure
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:This is going to sound really naive, but.... Stock up on these . They thrive on neglect and low light, absorb CO2 through the night , and NASA measured they're effective at filtering the air. There are other plants more effective at filtering the air, but these are virtually indestructible which means they'll remain a valuable commodity in Bartertown. Ironically one of the few ways to kill them are over-watering. They're toxic to cats, so added bonus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:we've all been dead for quite some time, the reckoning of the exact date of death varies in the literature. The popular consensus at this time in the broader academic sphere is that we all died on November 9th, 2016, but there's a growing contingent of scientists headed up by some luminaries at the CalTech Physics department claiming June 16, 2015, also known as "Escalator Day", as the point of our collective demise. Google is failing me, got some links to this stuff?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Google is failing me, got some links to this stuff? Not an American, I'd have to guess? It's about Trump. Harbinger of Ruin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
zxqv8 posted:Not an American, I'd have to guess? https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3834299
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:59
|
|
