|
I've been hearing on the radio that a lot of the predictions for the ocean shore levels rising have been a bit off, like they are going faster than previously thought. I've found a couple of the news stories online (http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/). Doesn't it make sense that as sea levels rise and earth have more surface water weather would become wetter on average and thats why we aren't seeing the massive drought events that were predicted by a lot of the climate folks earlier? Or is the sea level change too little to have that type of effect?
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:Yeah that was a meaningless argument... But I do believe that it is impossible to state that the Earth is supposed to be a certain way, which I base on the knowledge that the Earth has been constantly changing and not reverting. Henceforth we should translate "the way earth is supposed to be" into meaning: Earth the way humans can live on it in vast numbers comfortably. Who cares what the averages were, or how earth was in the past? During much of that time humans weren't around to care, and I think the point is that we want to continue to be around to care. Up above The Ender said that in the next 100 years we might be looking at a 10 to 15 degree temperature increase. I'd like to read some sources to that because the most I've seen is the lower number of like 2-6 degree in the next century. Here's a post by a local(to me) UW weather dude that refutes the NASA dudes paper thats been talked about a lot the past week or so and does so pretty intelligently and he also has claimed in this and multiple times in the past that he isn't a denier. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Aug 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
TACD posted:I just wanted to stop by and drop this incredible fact in your laps: Born in April 1985 so, bummer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Arkane posted:It's certainly plausible that the ocean is capturing more heat than anticipated, but it raises a pertinent question: if the oceans are capturing more heat, does that mean surface warming won't be as pronounced? That's a really interesting question actually, doesn't the ocean have a pretty huge impact on temperature because on average it tends to hold a more steady temperature over longer periods of time? Like, aren't areas near the ocean usually cooler during the summer and warmer during the winter as the wind comes off the water surface? If the ocean was warmer on average wouldn't that cause air temperatures to be warmer on average over time because it would cause the air above it to be warmer?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:not buying unneeded consumer goods and not eating fast food so often Who gets to define unneeded? Why should only poor people not get to buy unneeded things? Poor people tend to eat fast food because they also tend to live in areas where there are few other choices. Eating less meat is great in theory, but convenient protein in general tends to be expensive, meat included. Poor people tend not to have as much time to prepare meals because of having to work multiple jobs, weird shifts and 40+ hour work weeks just to pay rent. Poor people are the last people that we should be saying need to change their habits. The people that need to change their habits are the people creating food deserts, the people opening fast food chains, and the people that rent out lovely places to live that don't have proper insulation. I'm all for moving on to microcrops as a source of protein and eliminating the personal automobile, but for those things to be possible the entire structure of our economy and society has to change. Saying "poor people shouldn't buy unneeded consumer goods" is a really vague and silly thing. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
So we've been talking about over population, do people not think that humanity on earth has a carrying capacity? I'm genuinely curious, because I don't think the equation for climate change vs human population is something as simple as (Energy use per capita) * (number of people). You also have to take into account how large populations also take up lots of space and cause deforestation and need lots of space to produce food which leads to large areas that aren't really good for climate change in general. I think going (Energy use per capita) * (number of people) is simplifying something down that shouldn't be and ignores a lot of the damage to the environment that might not be directly related to carbon emissions, but most definitely influences climate change and having sustainability in general. Not mention human waste that isn't from driving your car or whatever. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Family planning in poor countries is good since their problems are to a significant extent of the too many mouths to feed variety, and family planning in rich countries is good because every rich baby born results in disproportionately high damage to the environment and consumes an enormous quantity of resources, but family planning itself will not be a significant contributor to the resolution to climate change. One of the problems with dealing with a global problem is there are lots of people that can see small parts of everything. Climate Change is such a huge thing that it will take a major social and cultural restructuring to mitigate it. I'm not even talking about stopping it or whatever. This is a really good example of part of this. Why do people in poorer countries tend to have larger families? Part of the reason is because its much much easier to have a large family than a small family. Your older children take care of your younger children while the parents work, and as the older children get older they also start working in order to make money to help support the family. Its just easier this way when you're poor. You don't have to go to poorer countries to see this, you can see it right here in the US. How do you take that pressure off the family where simply in order to survive you should keep popping out children? I said a few pages back that I agree population is a huge contributing factor to climate change. But you can't just ASK people to stop loving and not everyone has access to birth control. Forced sterilization? I think changing the public's mind on oil consumption in general is probably easier than any sort of eugenics program.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:People in poorer countries have more children both by choice, as insurance against child mortality (to pass on their genes), and once they have as many children as they want, because non-free contraception methods are unreliable. Children are a burden on a family for many years before they can even approach the point of a cost/benefit break-even point, and every child that cares for other children is a child that is uneducated and less able to provide for the family in future, and every day that a woman must spend caring for children is a day with less potential for productive work. With improved provision of medicine, women have more surviving children than they need to ensure that their genes survive, which results in a larger burden on both the family in question and their local society. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think that approaching climate change from a population control stand point would take far more effort than convincing the world at large that we need to do something. Through technology(farming, logistics) we've found means to expand our carrying capacity but part of the population problem is that the earth is still a limited place. Free contraception is a great start, but what form does that take? Condoms are pretty much the worst as far as preventing child birth because its too easy to just not use them. Also goes back to the whole stopping people from loving thing, because condoms are the worst for day to day contraceptive methods sex with condoms is really only slightly better than no sex. There are a bunch of better options, but we're still missing one of the most important which is some form of contraceptive pill/implant for men. My personal big climate change never happen partial fix thing is to take away the personal automobile, replace it with electric self driving cars that are like cabs but also free and hailed with phone apps or kiosks, oh man that would be the coolest poo poo but also completely impossible. The reality is that in order to stop climate change everything needs to change. Not just people being more educated and having less children, not just people driving less. It all has to change. In any sustainable future people are going to make sacrifices, I don't think those sacrifices would be so drastic that it would be impossible to live a fulfilling and meaningful life, we just have to change what that means (for people in the first world) not everyone wants three cars and closets full of shoes or whatever. I also don't think we should or need to strive for a carbon negative. Someone else said that what we really need to focus on is surviving and moving forward and I agree. As far as the idea that farmers had big families to help with family duties is a meme, as someone who has different families of farmers in their family I know that you can barely run a functioning farm with just two parents and one child, you're either going to have to hire help which sucks because smaller family farms don't make much money, or you can have built in helpers in having a large family. A small dairy farm is 24/7 work, if you have a family of three working on a farm and one or two of those people get sick or hurt for any extended period of time you're so hosed because any minute you're not working your farm is a minute you're not making money is a dollar closer you are to losing your farm. Of course modern farming is also a huge problem as far as how bad it is at feeding everyone and sustainability in general. Large cow farms are absolutely lovely for the environment(ha ha pun). Getting rid of animal farming and moving to a more sustainable farming model with microcrops would be a huge step(but people won't eat bugs because their icky). One big thing I notice is that one of the biggest arguments against doing anything boils down to money, want to take a guess as to what I think the real problem is? An economic system that relies on money to provide necessities, relies on money to express social status, relies on money to express power, relies on money in general. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 16:52
|
|