|
Dreylad posted:Geo-engineering is a last ditch effort to control cooling and stop things like methane pockets in the Arctic from melting and sending the heating spiralling out of control. But we'll probably have to use it at some point until we get our emissions down. What kind of geo-engineering we use is dependent on how much time scientists have to figure out the best solution, and whether or not there's an international accord not to use any kind of geo-engineering unless there's an agreed need and solution. This will be very tricky. The problem is, as Dyer has mentioned, it is likely that it will be a last ditch effort of the first victims of major climatic shifts. It only takes some relatively basic technology to put particles high enough in the atmosphere to affect a 1-2 degree cooling. That's the problem: it is actually so easy to do that the decision to do it won't be after global discussions, it will be as a knee-jerk reaction to immediate crisis. THAT is why we should not rely on geoengineering as a panacea and should do everything in our power to stop the runaway effects before they happen. Once those rockets or planes go up to deposit large volumes of stratospheric aerosols, the game is off and we wait for what's next.
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:What are some things we can start doing right now to prevent the situation from getting any worse? Are we already sitting on a ticking time bomb that will end our existence a few decades from now regardless of what we do? Hoping for some well-timed volcanic activity in the next couple decades couldn't hurt...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
Someone needs a refresher in synoptic climatology and why it's entirely different from broadcast meteorology.cheese posted:While I think there is a lot we can learn from climatology data and predictions, attempting to show us a heat map of rainfall levels 50 years in the future is kind of insulting to my intelligence. You're right, scientists just sit down with crayons and 'ballpark it'. You caught us. These are outputs from very large and complex models that use physical laws, known climate cycles and patterns, teleconnections, and geophysical variables to plot these trends. They are tested by using inputs from the past to predict the present (which most do fairly well, within an acceptable margin of error). So yes, we assume they work because they accurately predict the present based on the past, and they are continually improved to include physical processes and fine-tune them to better match reality. Got a better idea to understand this mess? Geoid fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
Struensee posted:This years minimum arctic sea ice extent is at a record low: It's also key to know that while the extent is going down, it turns out most of our Passive Microwave-derived sea ice thicknesses algorithms have been OVERESTIMATING ice thickness. What multiyear ice is left is becoming thinner and more rotten than we thought. I'm holding fast to a bet that we'll see an ice-free Arctic summer by 2015 and then it will become very interesting very quickly, as that thick multiyear ice has had a role in lessening the extent loss in warmer summers. EDIT: because I said the opposite of what I meant. Geoid fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Oct 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Struensee posted:Do you mean thinner? And yeah, from the charts that were posted a while back, it certainly looks like 2015 is the year it's going to happen. Yep, changed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I actually think that dissolution of major governments and breakdowns in international relations are likely results of climate change and they do not constitute a collapse of civilization. I disagree. There will be no complete 'societal collapse' as long as groups of people interact with other groups of people, as we always have. It has been outlined many of the potential direct impacts of climate change that are ongoing (increasing likelihood of drought, decreasing baseflows of rivers due to lack of glacier replenishment, crop failure etc.). I agree societal collapse is unlikely, but serious, measurable impacts are already being felt. I study ice climate in the Arctic and our field can see very clearly that we'll have an ice-free summer within the decade (very likely), and that will drastically affect the oceanography and stratification of the Arctic. This will in turn affect potential fisheries in the circumpolar world. It's the aggregate of many of these changes: some small, some large, some sudden and some very slow. If it is slow enough society will adapt and hopefully few people will suffer, if not we're in for serious trouble of which no one can predict the magnitude.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Guigui posted:Just wanted to add in my two cents as a public health professional: One of the other reasons our population growth has increased is that we have been quite successful at combatting the other natural regulator to overpopulation; specifically, infectious diseases. Technological advances, such as the seperation of potable water from sewage, the chlorination and treatment of drinking water, control of vector-borne diseases, universal vaccinations, food inspections, sex education, and the use of quarantine and isolation procedures during outbreaks - have gone a long way to maintain the population levels we currently have. Those that complain about overpopulation rarely realize if we returned to the 'good old days' of low demographic growth they'd probably be dead before reaching age 5.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 18:31
|
|