151–160 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It could be a fact that climate is changing. And also that we contribute to it in some known ways. > Who will be responsible for the consequences? Also, we can keep adapting, as we always did if the climate is changing. > I do not see the point in taking every piece of news from climate change like the end of thw world: we will have to keep adapting. This is only because you don't understand the problem, or don't l…
The trend is not clear and undeniable. Climate science is at best contentious and certainly highly politicised. All of the IPCC predictions of temperature rises have not happened. Sea level rises? The Maldives have been building several airports and both Al Gore and Barack Obama bought very expensive properties ($9 million and $15 million) by the sea. Hardly the actions of someone who believes flooding is imminent.
There is no sane and honest denying that man-made global warming is happening. It's just like thinking the earth is flat, at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think bigger temperature implies more life, why don't you set fire to your own home to make it more livable?
Did you steal that sick burn from Greta?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We still die because of heatwaves and water and food shortages. It doesn't happen so much in the colonial empires of Europe and the USA, but it is still happening in most other places on Earth. Any attempt to export the lifestyle of average US and European citizens to the billions of other people would accelerate the problem even more, requiring an ever-increased rate of energy use to maintain livable conditions. The…
The solution is precisely the opposite: dial down energy use (from all sources - industry, consumerism, travel etc) in the parts that consume too much. The solution to the risk of societal decline is to force society to decline? No. The solution is to make clean energy (solar, nuclear, etc.) abundant to the point that everyone has more energy available than they know what to do with. We have the scale to change the c…
Not to mention, global transportation is currently impossible without fossil fuels, in the current volumes - there is no way to have cargo ships and cargo planes and cargo trucks that deliver anywhere near as much as today without burning fossil fuels, and even futuristic batteries are not going to change that.
So, the only possible solution is to reduce our economies in the developed world. We are anyways consuming far, far in excess of needs, to the benefit of no one except the Apples and Amazons and Huaweis of the world. I'm not talking about food necessarily, but much more about goods - changing phones every year, changing cars every 3-5, new computers, new plastic crap, new clothes, new appliances etc.
All of this contraction will happen. We can taper off slowly over the next 50 years (?), or keep going at full throttle and have a massive crash. Unless we believe in some magical technology that will somehow create clean energy out of nothing without putting carbon in the air for mining and production, there is no changing this simple reality.
Perhaps if we had started seriously investing in renewables 50 years ago when the problem was first discovered, we could have actually built enough to avoid this. Alas, companies who knew chose to bury it, and scientists who knew chose to keep quiet.
Would someone confirm my understanding that rice fails to germinate above 34C, and that most rice is grown in equatorial regions hovering around 32C? Given the +1.5C in the IPCC report, the loss of suitable land for a food crop as important as rice seems like something we should be actively talking about.
Rice is important but western agriculture (Wheat) is becoming increasingly precarious, too. Wheat likes long growing seasons sure, but you know what it doesn't like? Too much or too little rain. Extreme climate (hail+wind can basically shear off wheat). Early frost, or late frost. As the weather warms we experience more variable weather. This could mean more crops that get damaged or destroyed by random freezing even…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A plant in the field can only take advantage of the extra co2 if there is adequate inputs but it does not do the plant harm if not. It would be like giving a city as much food as they want irrespective of individual need.
and temperature.. without the warmth you guys are so scared of there would be no life
You don't seem to realise that heating things up is pretty easy, even in a preindustrial society, while cooling things is extremely difficult and there is a hard and quite low limit to how hot we can remain for long periods of time.
At 35 WBT we're done for, literally can't cool down, die in a few hours even with no activity whatsoever, in the shade, with wind or a fan.
As we go above 1.5, the tropics will become literally unlivable as they will regularly exceed 35 WBT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, hang on. Which was the correct climate? At various times, the planet has apparently completely encased itself in ice and then thawed itself out. According to the climate historian Scotese, the average temperature has varied between 10C and 25C for two billion years. "Recently" it's been about as cold as it ever gets. Is it actually sad that it's warming up? What was it supposed to do, stay cold forever or get e…
The "correct" climate is one that isn't changing so fast that we'll need to globally rethink the logistics of food production. It's one that does not include being in the middle of an extinction event.
[1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9...
Sorry for being off topic here: I get pushback on this opinion from my friends, so I expect this to be an unpopular opinion here also: the cost of meat should be priced to also cover external costs of water and harm to the environment. I enjoy a steak once or twice a month, so I am not talking from a vegan-purity perspective. I think that there should be a tax on meat that directly supported research and infrastructu…
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Le…
Sorry for being off topic here: I get pushback on this opinion from my friends, so I expect this to be an unpopular opinion here also: the cost of meat should be priced to also cover external costs of water and harm to the environment. I enjoy a steak once or twice a month, so I am not talking from a vegan-purity perspective. I think that there should be a tax on meat that directly supported research and infrastructu…
> the cost of meat should be priced to also cover external costs of water and harm to the environment I think that should apply to everything, and not just meat. Air travel, vegetables, plastic, you name it. > I think that there should be a tax on meat that directly supported research and infrastructure for water and energy efficient farming, lower cost desalinization, etc. I don't agree with that. As long as you pay…
[0] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/323294/n...
[1] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/746763/n...