171–180 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See 'List of longest glaciers on Earth in non-polar regions' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers
57 is much less than 7,200.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If true, the article should be changed. Isn't the stratosphere extremely dry?
Yes, that's why a single eruption can have a noticeable effect. Stratospheric water may also set the upper limit on how many launches to orbit can be done per year, since all the propellant consumed in or above the stratosphere makes water that ends up in the stratosphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Gabe Brown switched from conventional agriculture to regenerative agriculture, he increased water infiltration in his soil from 0.5 inches (1.25cm) per hour to 30 inches (75cm) per hour. So imagine if he and all his neighbors had the same beautiful soil -- flooding just couldn't happen. I haven't seen a list of such measurements from permaculture, but I know it can be used to regreen deserts (as shown in Jordan,…
Yeah just imagine if a billion people completely changed their way of life.
"You have two life lines left: 50/50, and ask the audience" "I'm gonna go with A. Climate change "
Climate change has made us all incredibly intellectually lazy. Literally anything happens and we don't bother trying to understand why past "climate change". Natural disaster? Climate change. More or less insects/birds/rodents than usual? Climate change. More or less rain/snow/hail/heat/cold/storms/floods/droughts than usual? Climate change. Wildfire? Climate fire. Crypto currencies using record breaking amounts of e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US birth rate: 1.70 France birth rate: 1.87 Japan birth rate: 1.36 Pakistan birth rate: 3.45 So Pakistan, unlike many more developed countries, has a birth rate higher than the replacement rate, but significantly lower than it’s 1950 to 2000 highs over 6 - and trending downwards. The population would be expected to drop precipitously, but not soon.
Your logic is not sound. As long as birth rate remains above the replacement rate, population will not drop. Pakistan's birth rate has fallen significantly (but still above the replacement rate), so you will expect population growth to plummet, but not the population number itself
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What countries do you think this is true of? Even, say, France is still growing. Let alone the US.
US birth rate: 1.70 France birth rate: 1.87 Japan birth rate: 1.36 Pakistan birth rate: 3.45 So Pakistan, unlike many more developed countries, has a birth rate higher than the replacement rate, but significantly lower than it’s 1950 to 2000 highs over 6 - and trending downwards. The population would be expected to drop precipitously, but not soon.
Not sure about Pakistan because a Pakistan of 500 million doesn't seem sustainable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how it could help having tons of plastic also floating in the river and expensive gravel filling the river bottom. The best way would still be to work with the monsoon, not against it. But maybe I'm not understanding the solution. Can you explain more the idea?
Permaculture has nothing to do with tons of plastic nor gravel filling the river bottom. Permaculture is: the development of agricultural ecosystems intended to be sustainable and self-sufficient. I presume GP meant that by having more persistent vegetation in the area, that vegitation would do vegetation things and help with flood control.
I'm sceptical when I see agriculture wrapped in hype terms. I think that engineering will play a bigger role here. Forest restauration and dams that would retain soil and water and absorb part of the hit will help.
Just to speculate about possible partial solutions, I think that in plain areas subject to frequent flooding they could erect small hills and build the houses over those to defend homes. As floods will increase in the future, the sooner they start, the better.
They could also to dig a system of storm ponds. So will have many soil to build the hills. Moving soil can be done in the same step. The base of the hills should be heavily reforested to retain the soil in place. As a bonus you increase the forested area and help nature to flourish.
The other solution would be to dig concrete canals for as water highways but that would remove the main reason why people lives there: Very rich soil for agriculture plus water. You don't want all of this water lost in the sea
Storm ponds would play a benefit role to store water for the dry season also.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's why a single eruption can have a noticeable effect. Stratospheric water may also set the upper limit on how many launches to orbit can be done per year, since all the propellant consumed in or above the stratosphere makes water that ends up in the stratosphere.
How would it limit launches?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geoengineering is a unique prospect in that it's inexpensive-- Cheap enough that a couple of billionaires could pay for it if they wanted. In terms of interventions, it's a much easier pill to swallow than something in the trillions of dollars. The pushback comes from the risk. While we know that it'll cool the planet, we don't necessarily know how it'll affect weather patterns. If we can figure that out with some le…
I think there are probably several billionaires who independently have the resources the pursue significant stratospheric aerosol injection. I wonder how such an individual would imagine their liability for stochastic effects on agriculture. Those risks make me think it's most likely a government with a nuclear arsenal would pursue this... perhaps India? Mumbai could become a very difficult place to live in a few dec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe even relatively simple but massive reforestation efforts could help mitigate climate change effects in the long run.
Forests are not very good carbon sinks except in the short run. They have three problems when used as carbon sinks: 1) They tie up land for one, otherwise, non productive purpose (the wild species living in them do not mind that, must be said) 2) Once fully grown they reach a carbon balance. This can happen surprisingly quickly, a few decades. 2) Forests do not simply sit there like a rock. Eventually they will burn…
Not a short term carbon sink only.