|
Verge posted:I, err, have a question. Now, I don't come to challenge global warming or any of OP's premises but to genuinely ask why we give a poo poo about CO2. I know why we care about CO and other pollutants but CO2 is rather common - who gives a poo poo? Plant moar trees. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I'm not making an argument, I'm expressing ignorance on the CO2 as a threat subject. You would have to plant, according to one calculation I found, 1,554,723,200,000 trees per year at 2010 emissions levels to absorb the co2 being released by man.
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
Verge posted:Da gently caress is this? Source pls. Dams create large low oxygen bodies of water. Low oxygen water grows bacteria that release methane and the methane emissions from standing water are probably about half of all global emissions: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hydropower-as-major-methane-emitter-18246
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Are there any good sites for projections and simulations of how climate change might affect different areas of the world vis a vis food production capacity and general weather. Similar but different; are there any good climate blogs written by individual researchers/scientists? Something on the level of schneier.com, old fivethirtyeight.com, or old badastronomy?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Right now IMO the major 2 reasons that GMO food is bad: 1) biodiversity deceases because farmers are going to displace local varieties with higher-yield GM crops. This reduces the bredth of disease and stress resistance in the total population. The consequence is that eventually you can have an event that wipes out large amounts of the crop. 2) GMO crops are designed to be used with specific fertilizers and it makes it easy and convenient to over-apply them which causes damage to the surrounding environment. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:GMOs specifically are not the cause of this problem, the same issue occurs with the large scale dissemination of any commercially produced strain. It is just that GMOs are now the most popularly produced varieties. That's a little bit weird to say because although that can happen without GMOs the technology is specifically designed to propel a strain to dominance over all other strains. computer parts posted:No, if anything the opposite is true here. A strain of (eg) wheat that requires less water would be optimized for desert environments, while another version would be used for wetter environments. That's increasing the number of varieties. A region's local strains are already optimized for their specific environment (obviously). Think of the reduction in diversity like this: Monsanto can't make a strain for every one of the thousands of niches out there; they have to have a few flagship strains to sell. In addition, they are motivated to keep that library of strains small because it costs money to develop each strain. The only thing that can pressure them to do that is competition which they work hard to reduce. In effect; GMO strains end up harnessing the monopolizing power of capitalism and applying the reducing effect of competitiveness to the range of crops being planted.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure what you mean, aren't all commercial crops designed to be better than all others? What else are you designing for? Anyway by the sixties the majority of corn planted in the U.S. was mass produced hybrid strains designed for consistency. These pre-GMO hybrids were specifically designed to have very low genetic diversity, so that every plant would reliably have the same characteristics. GMOs are simply better versions of the same varieties. That's like saying fracking isn't a problem for global warming because people could drill for oil before it was innovated. We're talking about a powerful tool that accelerates the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
I am categorically NOT against GMO technologies but people asked what the issues were with them and I think that the supporters of GMOs should just say "yes those are issues but they're worth it" instead of putting themselves in the insane position of arguing that GMOs don't reduce crop diversity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The thing I always like to point out is that genetic modification is just another tool in humanity's box. You can murder somebody with a hammer but that doesn't mean hammers are inherently bad and should never have been invented. There's bad applications of genetic modification and there are good ones. Unfortunately we don't live in the alternate universe where GMO technology is used in a thoughtful perfect way. We live in *this* world where its used in imperfect ways. Just like a gun is not "just a tool" and has social and cultural connotations more significant than its literal form, so too do GMO foods.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Instead of insisting people don't talk about A you should say something interesting about B, for example answering my earlier question about climate change blogs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
lapse posted:New GISS data. As you can see, global warming stopped in 1998 As you can see, new technology will easily keep us under 2 degrees C.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The 'social problem' needs to be tackled to fix the 'physics problem,' but at heart it is literally a physics problem. A physics problem that has already gone past what scientists say is reasonable. If two decades from now we all get together and start working on it, good feelings and fellowship don't make up for lost time. And we're currently a couple of decades past when we needed to make real changes. I agree with what you're saying but semantically it isn't exactly a physics problem because the physics have been solved. That is; there isn't a physics question any longer when talking about global warming.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Calm down, it's the 2c above the yearly average which is the mark you're thinking of, not the daily average. An extreme one day value does not mean we've blown past the predictions. It's still loving hot not but not out of order in an El Niño year https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/705248491023380480
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:drat it's going to be really hard to get my bunker ready in time you fool, all that concrete is just going to trap the heat in with you. You need to build a large underground swimming pool like I am.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you care about climate change, then it becomes clear that the time it would take to fix these problems for nuclear (via socialism, new tech or whatever) massively limits the viability of nuclear as an advocatable policy course. We can't wait for new designs to get NRC approval, we can't wait for global socialism, we can't wait for a new and more perfect NRC to be passed into law etc. I think this is wrong for 2 reasons. First, we can do more than one thing at a time. Second, there is no hope that anything else is going to happen to seriously mitigate climate change so we might as well start on fixing what we can.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nuclear weapons will not create an Idiocracy society, and you're posting a projection in which most likely the population peaks and decreases. The shows 3 possibilities; why is the peak and decreases option most likely?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The threat of nuclear weapons itself is mostly a Cold War relic. If there is a conflict involving nuclear weapons, it will be one involving regional neighbors, not a worldwide carpeting. I think the same thing was thought about the austria-hungry/serbia conflict that spawned WW1. I doubt very much the wisdom of discounting the dangers of nuclear warfare.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, they thought the exact opposite. They thought it didn't matter because the war would be over quickly. Okay, here is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYo25fEFlVc
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:But outright collapse? No. It's a big, reactive system, and unless there's a vast, sharp threat from outside of it (supervolcano eruption, drug-resistant influenza epidemic, etc.), it's already reacting. I'd be more inclined to think industrial civilization will end due to automation than due to climate change. I think there are two things working against your post. The first is that while most doomsday theories are wrong, only 1 needs to be right for it to actually become doomsday. I'm not saying that global warming is going to be a doomsday scenario, but we have to evaluate it on it's own merits, and the existence of unrelated unlikely scenarios doesn't inform the severity of the issue. The 2nd thing working against your post is that global warming is not a sharp instantaneous problem. It will be 100 years or more before the worst effects are realized. While this does give us some time to react it present a different problem; the actions we take today will only register in 50+ years. This means that we need to act preventatively before the problem presents itself. This is the most dangerous facet of global warming because our systems cannot respond in real time, greatly contributing to the effects we'll end up experiencing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If /r/collapse is a bunch of survivalists fantasizing about the road warrior style post-apocalypse this thread is a bunch of depressives dreaming about how they and everyone else will finally be able to die We sound cool.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Have you, or have you not sterilized yourself? If not, why not? I feel like this is a bad faith argument because you can clearly tell from his/her posts that they are not going to be procreating anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
How are u posted:Jesus Christ. What, do you like live in a yurt in Portland and never travel further than you can ride your bicycle or something? Get off your high horse you sanctimonious twat. You are part of the reason people have lovely stereotypes about the climate movement and people who are concerned about climate change. Okay to be fair; most of those things you're describing are cool.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Seems like an opportune time to bring up Richard Muller's spectrum of participants in the climate debate: This classification is obviously bad because it doesn't allow for the possibility that global warming can be a serious threat. The categories are a set of thin strawmen designed to corral the reader into noted-non-climate scientist Richard Muller's personal beliefs. Setting aside the fact that Muller has been famously late in accepting climate science, and that he is still behind the curve, the fundamental logical structure of the article is poorly formed and non-scientific. This part in particular strikes me: quote:Exaggerators. They know the science but exaggerate for the public good. They feel the public doesn’t find an 0.64°C change threatening, so they have to cherry-pick and distort a little—for a good cause. What year was this written where .64C is the extent of the warming we're facing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
A more careful reading of that poo poo article turned up that its from his book "physics for presidents" which was published in 2008. Muller himself states in 2012 that he was a skeptic in 2008 and that he was rapidly converted to the science once he set out to study it himself: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html quote:Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. That is a 2012 quote from him. 3 years prior was the publication of those categories.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:That's not what I said at all. Maybe tone it down a notch. You hand waved away a bunch of people starving to death with some lovely sarcastic bullshit, what kind of response were you looking for?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Your first question should be "how many trees would we need to plant to offset our carbon use" and I recall the answer being something like 200 trillion.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You would have to plant, according to one calculation I found, 1,554,723,200,000 trees per year at 2010 emissions levels to absorb the co2 being released by man. Found it!
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
pidan posted:I know, but I parsed that sentence as "Science won't print it", which is not encouraging. Quacks exist. They get the hydrogen from water. Science isn't publishing the article for a few weeks while the peer review process takes place. This doesn't solve AGW because it makes a fuel which is then burnt and the carbon goes back to the atmosphere. The process is carbon neutral though. It remains to be seen if it can scale well.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:Since we still require a certain amount of these around to survive, and the potential for runaway and mutation is high with a bacterium, this scares the poo poo out of me. pidan posted:Considering that according to the article they feed on hydrogen, they'd have a hard time finding a place in nature where there's enough hydrogen to cause any significant impact. Also "The proofs came in yesterday ... it's going to be embargoed by Science" probably means it's bullshit. They use fresh water for hydrogen. There are already bacteria in the wild that do this. These new bacteria are using existing genes; think of them as a cross-breed between natural bacteria that eat hydrogen and natural bacteria that produce alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate-reducing_bacteria The main reason they aren't going to take over the environment is that they aren't efficient enough to compete with wild bacteria. These exotic metabolisms steal energy from the organism to make a useful byproduct for humans which is to the detriment of the host bacteria when compared to something more conventional.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wait they published a press release pumping up an article that hasn't even finished peer review? That's both sketchy and unethical. We're talking about a picture of an article from forbes.com, not a press release and anyway in specifically says that it "will appear" in Science soon.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is still super sketchy to be grandstanding about your paper before it's even available. That Forbes article couldn't talk to anyone but the authors so we have no idea what the paper really says or how realistic this is. You're a real retard.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Wakko posted:Washington Post has an article debunking it unfortunately. haha unfortunately
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's honestly nothing left to discuss. Virtually everyone agrees that yes climate change exists and yes it's a big deal and yes severe changes have to happen in order to at least attempt to live with climate change. When a conversation is difficult or a problem intractable, that can be a sign of its importance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
"Doing something good doesn't matter because it's not good enough" Surely if there is an amoral argument it's this. "Jesus shouldn't have cured the leper because he didn't cure all leprosy."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Putting the onus on the individual to reduce consumption is a bad political strategy. Carter tried an early version of it and people looked at the state of the economy, the beginnings of deindustrialization and told him to gently caress off. Any sort of change is going to have to come from top-down policy shifts that change production and consumption. Or it'll have to come from direct action against the worst offenders from the bottom. Either way, we need to find ways to radically reduce the amount or the energy footprint of the amount of stuff we make and use. Corporate power as it exists currently will have to largely disappear, and the system that will exist on the other side will look radically different from what we have now. It's not a political strategy, it's a personal choice. If you ride a bike to work instead of driving a car you've made a positive difference to your health and to the environment. If you unplug your electronics at night you're doing a good thing for your wallet and the environment. These choices don't have to solve the world's problems to be the right thing to do. The argument that an individual isn't morally responsible for excessive consumption is cognitive dissonance. We look at our lives and first decide that reducing our luxuries is off the table, and then next decide that we can't make an impact. Again, before someone quotes this; this is not a political strategy or a prescription for solving a crises. It's a frank dissection of our individual role in this tragedy of the commons. We might be only very marginally to blame, but the margins add up very quickly when we want to support 7 billion people on 1 planet. Fluffy Chainsaw posted:That same action, directed toward the elimination of coal as an energy source will have a far greater impact than it would if it was directed at convincing people to buy less. We don't have to pick 1 action to take, so you cost analysis breaks down rather quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:If you have the time to dedicate to all that, great, but I certainly couldn't hope to do everything suggested above and keep my job and support my family. There just isn't enough time in the day. If you can't think of anyway to reduce, reuse or recycle that fits into your life, then either 1) you're not trying very hard, 2) you're just being devil's advocate of 3) you're not living a typical western life.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I am going to put my cards with government entities that can command change and poo poo upon coal from a great height. Thank you and God bless. *puts AC at 60, grabs blanket*
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:his ultimate goal was surely political. What exactly does that mean? The last election he ran in was 2000 and this came out in 2006.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:sexual commodification of meat products explain
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Is there a word for being fanatically pro-science while also misunderstanding the fundamentals of it? You don't believe the science huh? Well go ahead, prove a negative HA got you now!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Look if you feel comfortable looking at the science out there and saying "it's super complicated, we don't really know", that's fine. I simply do not view it that way. What if climate change was a continuum of outcomes and not a boolean state of doom? When you say that "there's nothing we can do to gently caress ourselves less" it reminds me of an alcoholic explaining why the next bottle is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 04:34
|
|