I believe that it is already too late. Here's my proposed solution. Send a robot into space. Pickup an asteroid and bring it to Lagrangian L1. Have it begin weaving a solar curtain.
Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
61–70 of 242 posts
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what happens to the indigenous population of animals (polar bears are the first that come to my mind) when this happens? Do they just die out or are there groups trying to get them to safety?
Outside of captivity, where would it be safe for arctic animals?
Northern Canadian/European/Russian land masses.
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes trees are a perfect solution. They've optimized this process through millions of years of evolution. However, we're still removing more trees than adding them per year. Quite impressively so, even. It takes time for forests to grow. A lot of its carbon sink properties are because of soil succession, which takes decades to mature.
Who is "we"? I think the US is about equalized because industries like the the US paper industry plant about as many trees as we cut. If "we" is the world the lots of poor countries are unsustainably slash and burning. Starving people want to not die today so they make places to plant crops. If we is people afraid of the expanding growth of the Sahara southward then things like the great green wall are interesting: h…
As much as media and schools indoctrinate the idea that papers waste most trees, it's not true.
The biggest percentage of Amazon rainforest deforestation is for the livestock industry. The beef that USA and Europe gladly import, and the soybean that Brazil gladly exports.
Palm oil in Asia also.
Consumers just have to stop voting with their money for oblivious and blind short-sighted products. Politiciancs obviously will never tax beef or Lays chips.
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#64The conclusion of this article is not that global warming is dangerous but that local air pollution is bad for public health: "According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr. Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge."
Why should Donald Trump worry about local air pollution in Beijing? This has nothing to do with climate change. I highly doubt Donald Trump thinks thick smog is a good thing.
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's too bad Americans cannot vote for some of the most prominent cabinet members the way they vote for President/Vice-President. Many of these appointees will have a more direct impact on people's lives but yet they have no say in who will represent them. Democracy?
Representative Democracy yeah. The people voted in Trump who now gets to appoint those positions.
Well they need to be let in by congress, who the public also voted for...
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused with this statement but I'll try to clear up something you seem to be missing. 1) China is already convinced. It's in the article. They are the world-leading user of solar power and are pushing harder than anyone to get away from dirty power. 2) Trump wants to push and invest in dirty power. He wants to significantly increase the production of coal and gas. The very stuff that causes global warming. Conv…
> are pushing harder than anyone to get away from dirty power. Where do you gather that from? They use more coal than the entirety of the rest of the world combined. Their coal usage has more than doubled over the past ~15 years. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-environmen...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/chinas-meat-co...
This too, additional to other links. Meat consumption has a huge carbon footprint.
Their government institutions see the problem and invent guidelines. We'll see the same stuff from the USA, most likely never.
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#67I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…
I like that the theory has to assume that Canada is just naturally expected to take in American refugees while Mexico can go screw itself. With such ignorant American exceptionalism it's no wonder why we haven't fixed global warming yet.
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a geological timescale we are in a cooling trend, but what non-biased source grants credence to the idea that CO2 and Methane aren't warming things right now in greater amounts? It seems entirely reasonable that anthropogenic climate change is a bigger deal than ice ages and we could prevent one.
Having a higher CO2 or methan level for 100 years is on a geological timescale a rounding error. There were times in earth history (vulcano eruptions, meteor impacts) where life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change. And we are still here.
Yeah, and those past times also had mass extinctions.
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#69I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this.
No one has a solution for climate change that doesn't involve changing personal habits. People don't want to do that. Eating less meat or a carbon tax (i.e taxing the working poor) is not a solution. It's admitting defeat.
People don't need to "believe in climate change". We simply need to build a solution that is much better than what they have available now. What that solution is? Plenty of ideas, no one has a clue how to execute them.
The current strategy for the left is: let's see how guilty we can make people feel about their consumption habits and scare them with far distant consequences. Talk about funding "green"/eco-friendly businesses which barely make a difference and try to sell people on carbon tax.
For the right, the strategy is: deny, deny, deny. Double down on economic growth and hope innovation follows.
Of course, "hope and dreams" sells. Admitting defeat wouldn't get you elected. The rhetoric is adjusted accordingly.
Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably nowhere. But the alternative to captivity is that we will just see entire species of animals go extinct.
We have already seen many, many species go extinct. The exact figures are not well understood, but there's a lot more at stake than just the polar bear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
There's a 2009 paper "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" that may be of interest.
> The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context.
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 [2] http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
edit: and the indicator that is off the charts relative to its corresponding "safe operating space" boundary is biodiversity loss - measured in species extinction/(millions of species * year). Climate change looks practically controlled compared to that. (ha).