err posted:Are there any theorized deadlines that we could see that would make us say, "we done hosed up"? This is stupid alarmism the way it's phrased, "we done hosed up" is a very narrow-minded view of things. McDowell posted:In the US Northeast it's obvious already. Season changes are getting increasingly uneven (October 29th snowstorm, anyone?). I know I'm just being anecdotal, having lived here all my life. But I think the data will bear me out (just too cheap/lazy to buy it from NOAA) Erratic weather patterns and October snowstorms don't have much to do with climate change, you can't look at details like that in isolation, you need to look at a much larger trend. VideoTapir posted:That which survived was significantly less than before. With huge chunks of the food web removed, not just biodiversity, but biomass may have declined. That's what I meant by "it'll be one hell of a party after life recovers." Not that all life will die off, but that an awful lot will, and it will be rough going for a while...but once life can do something with all that extra CO2 (and has altered biomes that were useless at their particular temperature/ph conditions, with the organisms available to colonize them) things will be pretty active. This is just reaching, a mass extinction event is the definition of what is going on now, a hell of a lot of the life on this planet will die. That which survives will be quite comfortable, and it's not like we've actually hosed humanity any time particularly soon. There's a hell of a lot of lovely science on both side and that's because people have mistaken reality with loving faith. This thread is just an example of it in many cases. Those of us who work in related fields want to put a bullet in our heads when people go "OH NO WE'VE hosed HUMANITY THE WORLD IS OVER" as when people go "THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING HEH LOOKIT THAT EARLY SNOW". Seriously, it's really trendy to accept absolute worst case models which require a hell of a lot of variables and catastrophic thinkink involved. The earth gets warm every now and then, a shitload of stuff dies and things get kinda lovely for a while. It happens when ice ages end. That's been happening longer than we've been industrialized. That's not to say we're not contributing, that's not to say we're not releasing way too much CO2 into the atomosphere, that's not to say we shouldn't clamp down hard on the royal dickbags who keep curtailing regulation to gently caress up our planet. But to imagine that this is drastically different from any other warming event other than that we're here to witness it is scientifically ignorant. Stephen Harper posted:"Canada only emits 1% of emissions. China emits way more! Therefore we should do nothing." gently caress I hate that line of logic. We should emit Harper from our fine country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is just reaching, a mass extinction event is the definition of what is going on now, a hell of a lot of the life on this planet will die. That which survives will be quite comfortable, and it's not like we've actually hosed humanity any time particularly soon. There's a hell of a lot of lovely science on both side and that's because people have mistaken reality with loving faith. This thread is just an example of it in many cases. Those of us who work in related fields want to put a bullet in our heads when people go "OH NO WE'VE hosed HUMANITY THE WORLD IS OVER" as when people go "THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING HEH LOOKIT THAT EARLY SNOW". This is a lot of text to defend an attack on one sarcastic throwaway line (which was also pretty much correct, with only the timeframe being off) about you missing the point. "What's the big deal, we aren't going to eradicate all life on the planet, it'll be fine in the end!" What's your point? Particularly if you aren't using it as an excuse for clamping down on dickbags? Civilization suffers and/or dies. Humanity suffers and/or dies. A significant fraction, maybe even a majority, of species on Earth dies. If all you care about is the long (millions of years or more) term survival of ANY life on earth, why do you even participate in a discussion of global warming, if you know it isn't going to matter? I also didn't say it would be different from other warming events. Those were also pretty disastrous in terms of extinction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This is stupid alarmism the way it's phrased, "we done hosed up" is a very narrow-minded view of things. I was being sarcastic, but thanks for sperging out. edit: My question was, when is there going to be a major event (in the West) that shifts global warming to the front of the political spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:05
|
|
VideoTapir posted:I also didn't say it would be different from other warming events. Those were also pretty disastrous in terms of extinction. Right, but they happened anyways. err posted:I was being sarcastic, but thanks for sperging out. As has been pointed out, "global warming" is a misleading term and most scientists prefer climate change for the sake of accuracy. Also, there probably won't be a single big event. By the very nature of what we're looking at we're seeing gradual change. All that stuff about methane belching in to the atomosphere talked about recently isn't going to suddenly happen one day all around the world, it's just going to slowly bubble out. There may be big individual events tangentially related, but nothing that people are going to point to and say "Well gently caress, if only we'd listened to politicians interpreting science when we had the chance! Oh the humanity!" Sarcastic or not, so many people think that way that it's getting hard to tell.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
err posted:Are there any theorized deadlines that we could see that would make us say, "we done hosed up"? According to the most recent measurements the Arctic will have ice free summers by the end of this decade:  http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/06/depressing-climate-trends/ According to the IEA we only have 5 years left to curb CO2 emmissions or we wil trigger dangerous climate change: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
err posted:I was being sarcastic, but thanks for sperging out. Politically, eh. I'm hoping a certain president, if getting re-elected, will hanker down instead of caving in on certain issues just to garner votes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 06:14
|
|
Desmond posted:The shift will be gradual as we see more and more consequences from climate change on our doorstep. Many will deny these changes are resulting from climate change, though, with the current corporate messaging being so prominent in media. The problem isn't just that the media is bought and paid for (though it is), but that the message from both sides is poo poo. It's become a black and white religious issue, and people on both sides are making equally stupid claims and making it incredibly easy for opposite sides to ignore eachother. In the long run, those aware of climate change are closer to the truth than those saying nothing is wrong, but the sheer amount of catastrophism that goes on just leads to bad scientific journalism. I've been called clueless for saying maybe humanity's involvement isn't as huge as we think it is if we contrast it to other ice-age-ending and mass extinction events not by people who have the slightest loving idea how to look at the science, but by people who read a few articles or listened to some bloggers or loving Al Gore.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:According to the IEA we only have 5 years left to curb CO2 emmissions or we wil trigger dangerous climate change: In that case, oh well, we all hosed anyways... nothing left to do but sit back and enjoy the fireworks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 07:01
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:In that case, oh well, we all hosed anyways... nothing left to do but sit back and enjoy the fireworks. No. No no no no no. Stop saying that. Everyone needs to stop saying that. Is the situation grim? Yes. But when billions of people's lives are on the line, the solution is not to give up. The solution is to fight for the change that will address this looming problem. If everyone rolls over and says "gently caress it" then, well, of course we're hosed. With defeatist mentality, you lose before you even begin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The problem isn't just that the media is bought and paid for (though it is), but that the message from both sides is poo poo. It's become a black and white religious issue, and people on both sides are making equally stupid claims and making it incredibly easy for opposite sides to ignore eachother. In the long run, those aware of climate change are closer to the truth than those saying nothing is wrong, but the sheer amount of catastrophism that goes on just leads to bad scientific journalism. I feel that media is burdened as it ever has been. We need more Edward R. Murrows in this age. I personally like Dan Rather and always have. But mainstream media sadly tries to appeal to mainstream thinking and corporate pressure. Few and far between does media really have an independent, scientifically accurate report, and if it isn't funded properly it is not as well advertised. Scientists also don't always do a great job at explaining science to laymen. And peer reviewed or scholarly stuff is almost always expensive if you to try to buy the articles. Then we have to rely on reporters to try to translate things to the public, and hey if they are part of a media outlet that likes to spin things, you'll get all kinds of accounts but the true account. quote:I've been called clueless for saying maybe humanity's involvement isn't as huge as we think it is if we contrast it to other ice-age-ending and mass extinction events not by people who have the slightest loving idea how to look at the science, but by people who read a few articles or listened to some bloggers or loving Al Gore. I personally can see some problems with Al Gore, but at least he attempted to bring a problem to the public in layman's terms and got people thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Right, but they happened anyways. What does that even mean? "happened anyways" as if I'm suggesting that the level of extinction should have prevented their happening? Or are you suggesting that the fact that they happened means that this warming event was inevitable and no matter what humans do it was going to happen? Is there some third, not-stupid point you could be trying to make here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
Death Himself posted:We're already ignoring that. I guess because it's not happening in the US yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Where do you mean? Bangladesh is being overtaken by the ocean thanks to rising sea levels caused by climate change. They are also dealing with salination of their soil turning places which were once fertile farming land into deadzones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
Death Himself posted:Bangladesh is being overtaken by the ocean thanks to rising sea levels caused by climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Are you sure this is something that's actually happened already? A few google searches are finding plenty of warnings about what a one-meter sea level rise could do to Bangladesh, but nothing really indicating that any meaningful amount of land has in fact been overtaken already. They already lost some fishing communities on islands off the coast and on the coast itself. The higher water level during their normal flood season has caused salt water to reach places it never used to before, turning what were already thin areas of arable land even smaller or entirely useless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 08:50
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:How much do you think that accounts for the political climate in the US? It's instructive sometimes to look for what isn't being talked about. The boomer demographic is the elephant in the room everywhere. It has to contribute to government's thinking on getting anything done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
Death Himself posted:They already lost some fishing communities on islands off the coast and on the coast itself. The higher water level during their normal flood season has caused salt water to reach places it never used to before, turning what were already thin areas of arable land even smaller or entirely useless. Basically, do you have a link that I could potentially pass along to someone else? Evidence of loss of once-habitable land would be a useful thing to have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
Stephen Harper posted:"Canada only emits 1% of emissions. China emits way more! Therefore we should do nothing." gently caress I hate that line of logic. It's the number one argument finisher in the denier playbook right now in Australia. Even politicians feel safe enough to spout it. That refusal is the big "shut up and go away", which needs to be overturned. I just wonder what kind of threat will galvanize these people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 09:02
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Lost in the sense of "now it's ocean," or lost in the sense of "people moved away because of nasty weather?" This is a decent article I was able to find quick: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=81079 Though it seems to focus on loss of land due to rising water levels and not the salination problem. The problem with finding information about it is it's not a very popular story for whatever reason so it's not getting much press. I was talking about it with someone a few weeks back and they said National Geographic had a big article about it so maybe you can hunt down a copy of that, they usually have pretty pictures you can show off when talking about something like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:No. Alright, woo, I'm pumped, let's go "fight"! Except what do you suggest we "fight" with? Ooh, let's go and try to raise awareness. Or maybe we could walk more and drive less! Or maybe there will pretty obviously never be a large enough uprising to change anything, and so for all intents and purposes, yes we're hosed. I'm not giving up. I'd love to go and do something about it. I already do everything I can to minimize my own effect on the environment and I tell everyone I know about all the poo poo we're in. Please, keeping in mind that I am an average person without masses of money or non-layman knowledge of the climate, tell me something else to do so I can stop feeling/being so hosed. Please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 09:11
|
|
|
Death Himself posted:This is a decent article I was able to find quick:
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 09:44
|
|
|
I can understand the reasoning for leaving any kind of optimism out of these reports (cause the public would just grasp onto that and ignore the issue) but have there been any studies into survivability which point out stuff like we could all switch to eating delicious jellyfish paste or GM crops etc? If we very likely are hosed it would be interesting to read up on a more 'balanced' picture of whats in store for us (even if the balance is between bad and terrible).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 09:49
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Hah, are you joking? Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 10:00
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:No. So, you are saying that you still have faith in humanity or something? That's so cute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 10:14
|
|
|
Must not be from America or China.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 10:25
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:That's the thing though, they really haven't. This isn't going to be about money, the dollars they have will collapse with the rest of it. Its about potential and kinetic energy in its purest form, the ability to move things from place to place and grow stuff and then ship it to wherever they need it. I dunno man, that system worked pretty well for them during feudalism? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 10:40
|
|
|
I wish I could participate in this debate on a scientific level but I don't have the specialized knowledge to do so. On the subject of mass extinctions though - isn't this already happening? I'm only 29 and I can remember a time when hedgehogs, turtle doves and partridges were a common sight in the UK. They have practically disappeared now and its shocking when you think about it on such a short time scale. I think its happening so fast that there are people not a great deal younger than me who have never seen a hedgehog. If it isn't known, it won't be missed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 11:32
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I dunno man, that system worked pretty well for them during feudalism? One of the most farsighted science fiction writers was a bloke called John Wyndham. Some of us older goons had to do his books in high school, but I've never forgotten The Chrysalids. The plot isn't as interesting to me as the background, where survivors of our civilization (Wyndham suggests a nuclear disaster) are so traumatized by that history, they're determinedly feudal, terrified they will start the cycle all over again. He had a habit of writing good world-ending books, you might remember The Triffids. This rings true, and will probably be the result once we've bounced against the planet's limits and it puts us back our place, if we survive. And speaking of that demographic elephant I mentioned previously as being in the way of mobilizing ourselves, today's xkcd gives a hint of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 12:15
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Or are you suggesting that the fact that they happened means that this warming event was inevitable and no matter what humans do it was going to happen? This is absolutely the case. What is the issue is our impact on an already changing climate. There's no question we're loving up a lot of things with pollution and our carbon dioxide output, and I strongly advocate for strong environmental regulations, but scientific ignorance is becoming the norm on both sides of the debate and that is not okay. VideoTapir posted:Is there some third, not-stupid point you could be trying to make here? Please, tell me about your background in biostratigraphy and geology in general. You know, the science that does all the figuring out about historical climates.  Desmond posted:Climate change as a process is inevitable in time, but humans are not only moving it along faster than it should be going but destroying the planet in the meantime by extracting resources and polluting--this is loving important that we recognize this. If there's any hope for our future it's that survivors of this era aren't so stupid. We don't know poo poo about the rate of change relative to previous change events, and this is one of the areas there's a lot of misunderstanding. Outside of meteoric events, the assumptions on time of climate change are largely "It happened around here". The argument we're seeing is that relative to previously recorded rates, climate change is accelerating as time goes on. This line of thinking operates on the idea that the rate of change is linear with time, which isn't the case. Our contribution is to compound an already occurring situation, and if you think us coming out of an ice age is an occurrence of the most recent era of industrialized human history then I hate to tell you this but you're wrong. WanderingKid posted:I wish I could participate in this debate on a scientific level but I don't have the specialized knowledge to do so. On the subject of mass extinctions though - isn't this already happening? It's definitely already happening and nothing is really going to stop it, but what you're describing is more likely the effect of urbanization and memory bias.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
BobTheFerret posted:On the chemistry end of the spectrum, this is what I believe to be the most promising development in CO2 fixation I have ever seen: Just wanted to chime in to say these are impressive technologies for CO2 fixation. I especially like the electrochemical one, I've been looking for a good way to capture CO2 from the atmosphere for synthetic fuel production through fission-breeder nuclear reactors. Could this system also work in oceanic environments, like capturing CO2 from sea water solutions? A bit of a cross-post from my GBS thread but the reason I'm interrested is due to the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, a reactor that was originally invented and tested at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 60s-70s, and which China is currently researching. The things are theoretically cheaper than coal, safer than conventional nuclear by a long shot, easier to scale, and could be placed practically anywhere due to operating at high enough temperatures to use gas turbines while not requiring water cooling. Ideally for full use of their excess heat you could build them tethered underwater along costlines. That heat could be used to do a number of things like desalinate water, and could also be used to drive the production of Hydrogen and Oxygen through Iodine and Sulfur cycles (H2O + I2 + SO2+H2O --> 2x HI + H2SO4 + 900 C heat --> H2 + 1/2x O2 + I2 + SO2+H2O). Electrical power could be diverted towards CO2 capture and storage. Using hydrogen gas and captured CO2, it would then be possible to synthesize simple hydrocarbons for use as zero net emission fuel. Suffice to say LFTRs would be cheap and versatile enough to be deployed practically anywhere we need electricity, basic resources like water and fertilizer (H2 can also be used to make ammonium-based compounds) or fuel. Unfortunately only China seems to have any interrest in nuclear R&D these days, with all other countries continuing to build and operate old archaic 1st-2nd generation reactors. The public should be concerned if they care at all about their electricity bills or gas prices, since nuclear power has the potential to be extremely cheap when it's fully utilized and makes full use of fertile material to replace fissile fuel stocks. The ability to generate synthetic fuels anywhere would also be phenominal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Morose Man posted:One phrase sounds alarming but puzzles imbeciles. One phrase sounds non-alarming which stacks with all the other cognitive problems I mentioned to guarantee we will never address this problem until we see Los Angeles drown. I listened to an episode of CBC's Ideas with a climate advocate who is pretty drat politically extreme (would refer to GWB in his lecture as "The Bush Crime Family", to give you an idea.) I dislike science that's been salted with heavy politics but he was informative enough that I could put it aside. Even this guy preferred climate change to global warming because climate change actually says what's going to happen: the expected climate for a given region is going to change. You'll see snow where you never see snow, tornadoes where there shouldn't be any, areas rich with crops won't be farmable, etc. Or as he said, "when you tell people global warming is coming, they assume you mean the Hollywood disaster movie bit where the ice caps melt and the water level rises up and entombs our coastal cities. I keep trying to tell people that's the least immediate problem; don't worry about that, it's not going to sneak up on you."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:Could this system also work in oceanic environments, like capturing CO2 from sea water solutions? Yes, but the main problem would be that the dominant form (>95%) of dissolved CO2 is bicarbonate and the equilibrium between HCO3- and CO2 is rather slow. So if you were going to sequester CO2 directly from seawater you'd either want to use a process that works directly with bicarbonate or some way to get force it into CO2, like carbonic anhydrases
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
BTC.spengler posted:Mass extinctions have happened before and will probably happen again even if we could undo the industrial revolution. I have to say that there's nothing more annoying than this faux-nihilism. Yes, I'm sure that you have trouble caring about what happens outside of your wow-raids because 'nothing ever gets fixed man' but to actively give up without even fighting just seems so subhuman to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
On the subject of methane clathrates, my research group works on developing sustainable water-degradable polymers as substitutes for petroleum-based plastics. My adviser likes to refer to the methane as a C1 feedstock, and in fact you can build methane up into small biological molecules that can also serve as monomers for said water-degradable polymers. One thing he never talks about, however, is how to harvest these clathrates, and my question to anyone who knows about this is how feasible is this idea of collecting the methane?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:
Perhaps you could explain some of the problems with reconstructing past rates of change in the climate. I was under the impression we had pretty good temperature reconstructions for the last few hundred thousand years but maybe I'm mistaken? The Professor in my hazily remembered class on the atmosphere, oceans, and climate liked to say that human influence on climate is driving CO2 levels past anything experienced in Pleistocene, making the current era fundamentally different from other recent warm periods. Could you get into some the specific difficulties of reconstructing past climates, maybe some of the difficulties with using marine microfossils? You seem to be getting a little defensive and have been lashing out at jokes and the genuinely confused. I think getting into the specifics of your complaints might make your position more coherent regarding the problems you regarding many positions taken by those pushing to mitigate climate change
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The problem isn't just that the media is bought and paid for (though it is), but that the message from both sides is poo poo. It's become a black and white religious issue, and people on both sides are making equally stupid claims and making it incredibly easy for opposite sides to ignore eachother. In the long run, those aware of climate change are closer to the truth than those saying nothing is wrong, but the sheer amount of catastrophism that goes on just leads to bad scientific journalism. Well this is great news. But do be specific: What do you think the consequences of 2 degrees of warming will be? Who should be listened to? James Hansen? Should we be aiming for 350ppm? And if the warming is less due to greenhouse emmissions than is commonly claimed, about what percent do you think they account for? Finally, why is your ice-age view not more widely accepted and transmitted, if it reflects the actual "in the know" science?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
superjew posted:One thing he never talks about, however, is how to harvest these clathrates, and my question to anyone who knows about this is how feasible is this idea of collecting the methane? Not terribly, I'd guess. The rule of thumb is that pressure increases by 1atm for every ~10m of ocean depth, and those clathrates are thousands of meters down. You're talking about hundreds of atmospheres of pressure and a km or two of water to get to the clathrates. I mean, the technology for deepwater oil drilling exists, but that's for a liquid. I'm not sure how you'd recover methane clathrates, you'd have to deal with the solid water-ice matrix. It'd be tough. Squalid posted:Could you get into some the specific difficulties of reconstructing past climates, maybe some of the difficulties with using marine microfossils? The question wasn't directed at me but I'll take a stab at it. I've worked with a number of paleo-oceanographers who reconstruct past climate using foraminifera (microfossils). Off the top of my head, here are some of the challenges involved in paleo reconstructions: 1. Uncertainty in dating. Some forams can be dated using 14C (radiocarbon), but that's only good for about 60,000 years back. For reconstructions older than that, often you have to rely on guesswork based on the species of the forams (which have very unique shells). For example, "we know this kind of foram lived during this time period, so we're going to assign it a semi-arbitrary date." You cannot simply date the age of rocks or sediments to accurately determine the age of the microfossils due to a process called "bioturbation," which despite appearances is not related to masturbation. Bioturbation is simply a fancy term for "worms and clams and various things live in sediments and stir them up so the microfossils don't layer cleanly into sediments based on their age." 2. Uncertainty in proxies. Paleo reconstructions rely on various "proxy" measurements to determine past temperatures and other climate metrics. For example, foraminiferal shells are usually analyzed for their del-18O ratios (oxygen stable isotopes). We just happen to have pieced together that there is a relationship between the temperature of the seawater (note that is DIFFERENT than air temperature) and the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminiferal shells formed in that water. We think we know why this relationship exists, but there are a number of caveats and complications to it. Similar story for various other proxies. What all that adds up to is our temporal resolution isn't great. Keep in mind that anthropogenic climate change is occurring over the time scale of ~150 years (since the industrial revolution). Our climate proxies simply don't have enough resolution to study intervals that small beyond the last couple millenia. Then you throw in all the complications from the proxies... I'm not saying they're bad or unreliable, they aren't. We have many different proxies from many different reconstructions that say similar or the same things. Edit: I'm not sure what WAFFLEHOUND's point is re: "we are only adding to climate change that was already happening." Earth is currently in an interglacial period. For the last few hundred thousand years, the planet has cycled in and out of ice ages. Don't consider this a terribly strong assertion on my part (don't have time to pull up the relevant graphs) but if memory serves we should be due (eventually, not anytime soon, remember we're talking geologic timescales!) for another ice age, if anything. Based on the glacial/interglacial patterns, Earth getting even warmer is unusual as we're already at the warmest part of the interglacial phase. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Let's talk for a moment about what we can do. I think we need to start with our own personal choices, eg: - can you walk instead of driving? - if you feel cold at home put more clothing on before you put the heating on. - can you use public transport instead of driving - turn the lights out and machines off when you exit a room. - talk to other people about why you are doing these things. Essentially the issue is that when we use electricity, when we drive, when we heat our homes we very gradually destroy the atmosphere. And it's not fair on future generations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
How many times do I need to walk instead of drive to make up for an aluminum production facility or a tanker crossing the ocean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Morose Man posted:Let's talk for a moment about what we can do. This kind of thinking is fine, but the changes we need to make are institutional, not individual. You will never be able to convince all people, everywhere - individually - that they should give up their cars, and we should embrace better environmental practices. Although that being said, it is useful if you're trying to build environmentally responsible communities at a small level. But the change we need to make are institutional and structural. They require that we completely change the way we think about producing, transporting and consuming goods, as well as the production and distribution of energy we need to maintain what we consider a pretty decent quality of life. It might require a new kind of economy or a new kind of political system. Or they may be forced onto us by disasters, wars and circumstance. It's hard to say. edit: I should add my go-to guy (that I post a lot) on these issues in terms of talking about long-term (cutting carbon emissions) and short-term (the dreaded geo-engineering) solutions is Gwynne Dyer. Here is a good talk by him on the subejct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY He talks about various predictions from various sources that tend to vary on how optimistic they are. What I get from him is that there are a lot of different models on the scale and timeline of potential environmental disasters, but most of them predict that things are going to happen a lot faster than we tend to think they will. The talk is based on a book he wrote. Most of the interviews for that book are available on his website if you want to listen to a particular person: http://gwynnedyer.com/interviews/ Dreylad fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 21:19
|
|
