- Last post
- 553 Responses
Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims
- We also need to raise minimum wage to $20 per hour to save the planet...robotron3k
- ^how does min wage have anythign to do with climate changecannonball1978
- cant waitd_gitale
- we b robotrol'dutopian
- more concerned with a 2024 debt interest payment than 2050.deathboy
- We need to cancel millennials' student debt first because they are all entitled first-shooter safe-spaced cunts.teh
here's an interesting topic.
See more peer studies and data, but a prime example of data measurements that ignore effects of bigger things than hard to measure man-made effects. Gamma rays effecting EM fields that effect cloud coverage. Hahaha it's all crazy. I'd say scepticism is a must in challenging such data and measurements. But refreshing seeing focus on larger global cycles. Also i still like to see measurements of manmade at .01 vs typical .1 carbon. Still not exactly sure of what popular method measures man-made carbon vs environments.Cant imagine any accurate lab style formula and any has a large margin based only on select data.
Massive Forest Restoration Could Greatly Slow Global Warming
We have heard for years that planting trees can help save the world from global warming. That mantra was mostly a statement of faith, however. Now the data finally exist to show that if the right species of trees are planted in the right soil types across the planet, the emerging forests could capture 205 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the next 40 to 100 years. That's two thirds of all the CO2 humans have generated since the industrial revolution. "Forest restoration is by far our most powerful planetary solution today," says Tom Crowther, a professor of global ecosystem ecology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, and an author of a study published Thursday in Science that generated the eye-opening number.
The study team analyzed almost 80,000 satellite photo measurements of tree cover worldwide and combined them with enormous global databases about soil and climate conditions, evaluating one hectare at a time. The exercise generated a detailed map of how many trees the earth could naturally support—where forests grow now and where they could grow, outside of areas such as deserts and savannahs that support very few or no trees. The team then subtracted existing forests and also urban areas and land used for agriculture. That left 0.9 billion hectares that could be forested but have not been. If those spaces were filled with trees that already flourish nearby, the new growth could store 205 gigatons of carbon by the time the forests mature.
- Time to start using https://www.ecosia.o… ?Nairn
- stop deforestation, for onedrgs
- I think in the future, every adult human should be obligated, by law, to plant at least one tree in their lives. Like some grand social conditioning.Nairn
- Agreed. Or one for the death of each family member. Like part of a funeral service to plant a tree over the grave.monospaced
- "A man must build a house, plant a tree and father a son" Talmuddrgs
- make every day arbor dayimbecile
- that's what became the 'save the rainforests' initiative.uan
- but if we plant too many trees and we see a decrease in carbon co2 we could get cold. But our perceptions of co2 data which is on a decent scaledeathboy
- of what like 650,000 years... is a reasonable entry point, but considering we also calculate the age of the earth at 4.5 billion yrs. we have to always questiondeathboy
- wether are data is broad enough, 650K (pretty broad but at what scale?) and even at that scale we see natural co2 level outside humans rise and fall.deathboy
- Which makes absolute sense. What causes our seasonal changes from plants growing and dying and winter coming?deathboy
- Tilt. Something we cant change. Now how about orbit + tilt? Plus source of energy and output? Can we even calculate it?deathboy
- basically i wouldn't try to go on a china beat back the desert by planting trees kick. but net gain as trying to equal it out inst a bad ideadeathboy
- but all at what cost?deathboy
- There’s no conceivable environmental or any other problem with planting more trees. At all.monospaced
- there is if you look at cost and effect mono. like suggesting no amount of money washed down the drain is wasted...deathboy
- but please if you want to fake you know what im talking about explain the benefits of such labordeathboy
- what has chinas cost been, the social effects of such programs, waste, or even increased carbon footprint?deathboy
- those are real effects outside a larger seasonal unchangeable reality that effects life as we know it.deathboy
- If there's a problem, what is it (looking at the cost and effect)? Planting trees decreases carbon footprints. social effects are only positive.monospaced
- Planting a tree is almost free, and weather does most of the work from there. The only cost would be watering it, at most.monospaced
- At the rate of deforestation, planting trees is a way to curb the negative effects that has on the planet.monospaced
- So I conclude — AGAIN — there is no conceivable negative impact of planting more trees. Unless you're a dick and don't like clean air or shade.monospaced
- There is literally NO SUCH THING as planting too many trees, as you have implied. No waste of money, no waste of labor.monospaced
- haha planting a tree has more cost than watering... jeezus lol... guessing someone hasn't even landscaped a backyarddeathboy
- as far as the "too many" trees that is a natural cycle outside our lifetime. Has nothing to do with us planting trees. a joke that you misseddeathboy
- china has spent well over 100 billion in forestation efforts that are not practical and have resulted in a huge waste of funds. im not about central planningdeathboy
- but imagine if you were a planner how you could use those funds in better way. really just a prime example of poor central planning though since that moneydeathboy
- would have a much better chance of helping society in free hands.deathboy
- as far as planting trees outside the china example. i think lumber trade should do it for future investment. but how about ppl in vegas? running non nativedeathboy
- water heavy plants in drought type climates? is that good? Whats the larger costs to agriculture and food. The central planned argument is always funny in howdeathboy
- such small thoughts never worked out. They check out after the dopamine rush of a "good deed" and never look backdeathboy
- "china has spent well over 100 billion in forestation efforts that are not practical and have resulted in a huge waste of funds."
- imho one of China's next big exports will be 'environmental rejuvenation tech'. Thye've made huge strides reclaiming deserts and aforestation.Nairn
- They've had to, because historical national policies destroyed huge tracts of their environment. Fixing this, no matter how costly, will always be profitable.Nairn
- As for your assertions about water waste, that's bullshit too. Rain over land interiors mostly comes from natural particulate emissions from trees.Nairn
- Global warming means more water in the atmosphere. More trees means more water over land. It's an entirely virtuous cycle.Nairn
- nairn https://royalsociety…deathboy
- think i read it in the economist though. more about the waste and effects of money spent down the soclal pipeline has largely been a waste with no good resultsdeathboy
- "Global warming means more water in the atmosphere. More trees means more water over land. It's an entirely virtuous cycle." huh?deathboy
- by this you are asserting global warming is good and the more we have the better? as far as water usage mention it is focused on man usage not natural particuladeathboy
- the trees china are planting don;t get natural water. nor vegas landscapes (why a lot art artificial turf) but the focus was more directed at mans controldeathboy
- and waste in thinking it can control or know better. especially politcians with little no background chasing votesdeathboy
- "because historical national policies destroyed huge tracts of their environment. Fixing this, no matter how costly, will always be profitable"deathboy
- how so? example? profitable on politician public dime or by peer free trade?deathboy
- planting a tree isn't a big cost beyond water, not at all ... and yes, not only have I landscaped a yard, I do so in the one I fucking OWN and plant trees inmonospaced
- once again, there is NO CONCIEVABLE negative impact to [planting more trees, not economically, environmentally ,socially, or any other way imaginable.monospaced
- Private citizens planting trees puts NO COST AT ALL on a society, the government or regulatory bodies. And your argument about a dry desert is irrelevantmonospaced
- because nobody said or even implied it would work in all climatesmonospaced
- If people planted more trees, those would add to the planet's ecosystem in a positive way, offsetting rapid deforestation ... so it's only a good thingmonospaced
- so yeah, man CAN and SHOULD plant more trees, FOR the benefit of the environment itself, because it is real and measurablemonospaced
- well mono I'm totally fine with private enterprise planting trees and absorbing costs associated with them. However private vs public is quite a differencedeathboy
- i never said that was a bad thing. Just stating how public policy following such thinking creates waste. and pointing out cycles. https://phys.org/new…deathboy
- Outside man popular theory is warming periods produce more vegetation but peak in pulling out too much co2 causing coolingdeathboy
- jsut sciencedeathboy
This thread reads like a bunch of born-again Christians debating Bible verses or some orthodox Muslims arguing about virgins in heaven... You guys are way more religious than you believe yourself to be.
Guadalajara, Mexico: average temperature 87.8 F / 31 C
An estimated 7 feet of hail inundated the 5-million population city, sweeping away dozens of cars and flooding streets 2 meters deep in slush.
Imagine going to a climate/environment science blog website, and seeing them debate about design and the differences between UI and UX.
This is what this thread is. And this is what the rest of the dumb as fuck world is.
Listen to the experts. Question them. Debate them. But listen to them.
'Existential' Risk of Climate Crisis Could Lead to Civilizational Collapse by 2050
"Even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated and in high-end scenarios, the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model with a high likelihood of human civilization coming to an end"
Climate Science seems like a misnomer
Do people who practice Climate Science really engage in science or data analytics? Do they recreate our diverse environment and test hypothesis through experimentation. Or do they just pull data and make projections like any wallstreet analyst trying to trace trends in organic markets. Scientific methods usually don't allow for error with independent testing. You don't see the measurement of gravity changing...
Of course that is more empirical science and hypothesis amongst scholars and academics is a bit different, but it's disconcerting for such discussion to take mainstream popularity amongst people who have no ability to judge or think about what they are told. Do they question satellite or ocean data, does that data capitulate for solar, orbital rotations, is solar or orbital even quantifiable? Do they realize that 98% of fed data is biased and paid for? Can they judge my bullshit 98% measure without citing from valid source and judge the source?
Climate scientists I think really need to have a more accurate name. Analysts. And they should be compared similarly to all the wallstreet analysts that on a daily basis swing from melt up to melt down, bull to bear, because truly our econ market is vastly smaller than global climate in scale and scope and we hardly can predict that. Maybe help give the majority better perspective to what kool aid they are drinking.
Also as living legends stated "only thing to plan for life is change." the idea we could even control climate change... its like 1000x more stupid than trump thinking he can control economy. From vostok records there seems to be about a 100K year climate cycle uneffected by us. Not sure how it measures up with our rotational eccentricity or polar variations, or if our human contribution may adjust it by 100-200 years. It's stupid to think one day our coastal cities won't be flooded and as stupid to think we can change it.
I'd love for some common sense on climate change, but think its more our days populace flat earth hypothesis. Gone mainstream where everyone has an idea about it and flat makes more sense that earth is flat because if round we'd fall off. Enough knowledge to know how gravity works in a room, but not enough broad knowledge to fully understand it all.
But to sum it up every climate scientist is no different than a wallstreet analyist predicting doom and gloom for who knows paid benefit.and always look historically, you'll see how wrong all are.
- isn't it that thousand year trends can and are taking place alongside relatively short-term human-influenced spikes?Fax_Benson
- that it's preferable that our coastal cities are drowned at the end of the 100k year cycle rather than in 30 years because of something we might haveFax_Benson
- There is predictive climate science (modelling future climate) & there is empirical climate science that examines evidence of exiting effects of climate changelowimpakt
- I'd say this screed will age very poorly, but it won't age at all once there's no one left to keep the lights on.e-wo
- its hard to accurately measure effects of human impact. so far all I have seen is analyst data point changing and saying humans. Similar to up and downs indeathboy
- markets and saying china woes or fed minutes. Speculation which hardly depicts any idea of whats going on but sells and keeps grants flowingdeathboy
- And as far as a 100K yr cycle vs 30 years, it should be considered our place in the cycle and wether costs of measures are worth the delay. Like botox, or a hipdeathboy
- replacement on someone knockin on deaths door.... Maybe that is really what its all about. The fear. And the soothsayers selling magical cream to alleviate usdeathboy
- of that fear. Climate change done in christian fashion.Salvation for sacrifice todaydeathboy
- And to your point Low there is indeed some actual science in climate, but it isn't what is driving people knee jerk reactions under the guise of "scientist"deathboy
- is expert bullshit attempt to feed opinions to public as science by job title. knowing most people will bow to rank of the title. the same shit agencies do todeathboy
- brand themselves as "experts" or specialized. why i suspect we are so focused on inventing new words to repeat trendsdeathboy
- Cant help but think instead of military contracts about fear of other countries and missile crisis fear is now sold as climate change. Mostly as policiticaldeathboy
- ploy and bait, with private companies saying fuck it there money there lets get involved and make a buckdeathboy
- There was an equally big pushback against the claim of a hole in the ozone layer back in the 90s. Turns out the science was right on that one.T-Dawg
- And thankfully legislation was enacted, CFCs were banned, and the ozone layer is slowly recovering.T-Dawg
- I think that might be a closer comparison to look at rather than wall street.T-Dawg
- Well as all climate science it depends on the studies https://www.forbes.c…deathboy
- which i think is more like wallstreet with analysts for bulls and bears. our economy is dynamic system, much smaller in scale and scope to global climatedeathboy
- always changing making every analyst prediction almost useless or relative to predictions and patterns that have so much more effect than the generalizationsdeathboy
- If we cannot predict our living economy (even with godlike control of monetary funds and regulations) can we predict a larger and vaster dynamic systemdeathboy
- long term most of us if not all will die based on orbits, sun, meteors, and natural things outside our control. Like markets I have no idea the timing. I candeathboy
- guess based on stacks of data, but I always know in a dynamic changing system no static figures are worth a damndeathboy
- In the article you linked, the researcher who's study the article is based on stated:T-Dawg
- The Montreal Protocol is working, but if the negative trend in lower stratospheric ozone persists, its efficiency might be disputed.T-Dawg
- The title of the article is a little bit hyperbolicT-Dawg
- We already see smaller scale models of human pollution affecting ecosystems: Lakes & oceans, air quality around major cities, soil quality.T-Dawg
- And in these all these instances, prevention is the most sensible & cost-efficient means of dealing with the problem.T-Dawg
- The same can be said for natural disasters if you want to address the unpredictability argument. Building dikes for floods, earthquake resistant structures.T-Dawg
- All cost more in the short term, but if the 'unpredictable' happens, the investment seems like a no-brainer.T-Dawg
- Well for the small scale models we'd have to see the data and more importantly the motive for the studies. You will find most small scale are paid for by specideathboy
- al interest groups, firms. I'm not sure prevention costs are less. Or how you would make that assumption. Is it based on a carbon tax? Is it regressive to thedeathboy
- poor? Is it just to force funding on people to build an ark. I'm all about diminishing human footprint, but im very scared to accept broad regulationdeathboy
- and very concerned that the fear of climate disaster will create economic and political disaster far faster than than any real climate disaster.deathboy
- a political/econ that does more harm than climate.deathboy
- Well, if you want to see the data, here are links to the studies, organized as counterpoints to denial arguments
- It's run internationally by cooperating scientists in different fields of study. Funded by public donations.T-Dawg
- If your concern is purely economic then I'd say there are probably have bigger fish to fry in other areas of spending.T-Dawg
- *probably bigger fishT-Dawg
- I understand it's hard to put a price on prevention, as you can't arbitrarily assign a value to something like global temperature.T-Dawg
- But like most environmental policy, you start somewhere, monitor the results over the course of a few years, and adjust as needed.T-Dawg
- If you think that's doom and gloom enough to cause a recession or crash an economy, then maybe it's more a question of ideology than economics.T-Dawg
- Im actually excited to talk about this. For one the URL of the site you post is gamed at what you want. Take for ex. the first reason. It states in title humandeathboy
- are dominant force, but doesn't go directly into
the relation, obviously because there isn't enough data to project shit.deathboy
- but they talk about co2 levels,and i find this science pretty good. albeit no way to tell human contributions, but in 40K-100K spans we see co2 altering climatedeathboy
- similar to capitalism (if you think of it as organic system) as it gets to high it alters to cooling and balances out, however measuring only C02 is a easydeathboy
- mistake thinking the environment is static. Its always changing and our magnetic field and orbital eccentricities play a big part. We have see this through geodeathboy
- logy studies. So the site you cited didn't, really cite any real arguments but does paint a bigger picture if you read through the lines. Look at no. 6deathboy
- It basically says its a mathematical model based on analyst data maps. Its does say it makes accurate predictions on such data but that is false... or at leastdeathboy
- mostly false because predictions like wall street analysts might only hit like 1% and rest junk, and 1% luck with no real idea why.deathboy
- if we look at an average amoutn of predictions and plotted lines and graphs I wonder what percentage of accuracy would exist and wonder how fund of researchdeathboy
- grants would align. AS far as monitoring weather results over a few years. Just because we live 75-100 years or so might change our relative view of a few yearsdeathboy
- and how we even might view seasons. is it not probable that our yearly cycle is similar to the life of a fruit fly? That extinction events exist on larger cycledeathboy
- s that our existence has always been more finite. So much of the climate prop really lacks true scienctific thinking and more biased. I get it it's not populardeathboy
- knowing inevitable death and what not. Church did pretty well rebelling against it or profiting from it. But it is the most rationale thing to consider whichdeathboy
- never is when talking about climate change possibilities. And i think that's because those with means/rich and scared to lose what they have are the biggestdeathboy
- advocates, or idiot fools trying to look out for progeny.. but when you accept the fate it helps to see the big picturedeathboy
- in this case i do advocate less gov rules that harm people economically that are trying to look out for the interests of the rich.deathboy
- What is the point of increasing price of living so high that only the top 30% can afford it. And all the while acting for their interests. That is bad ineuqlitydeathboy
- and a gov that runs that way is china scary. different fear levels will get different reactions... culture note the choice of my handle has always been adeathboy
- reminder of my morality, pulled from the book of arts. A title chosen and yet character has huge fear of it. but a reminder as not necessarydeathboy
- so take that in mind. im not emo, not scared, far to rational and I get ppl are rarely similiar as such but important to understand views.deathboy
- I can concede to some of those arguments at this time, I'll explore the topic some more. Thanks for the discussion! :)T-Dawg
- Yea always fun. Give you a chance to come back with stuff i might not know. whole point of discussion isnt to promote bias but growthdeathboy
- i know my knowledge is so little and different views is like delegating workloads. All parties should see gains through competition of ideasdeathboy
- who cares? fuck this stupid planet!utopian
- nihilism is one approach utopian, better than the alternatives probably. unless its more of a buddhist nature and acceptancedeathboy
- but doubt it with the "stupid". i struggle a bit with day to day shit. probably go through the same patterns obama did when trump was elected. denial acceptancedeathboy
- or plain settlement. sometime i feel that epihpany buddhist nature of full acceptance and bliss of things we cannot control, but never can maintain it.deathboy
- too much desire to control my future or plan? I get it and its hard as fuck to accept. The desire to change things we cant and the irrational nonsense involveddeathboy
- I think the fear is I feel on such things is a large driver for motivation. be greater to help people see better potential in reason over emotiondeathboy
- difference is today we have alternatives.
'millenials' calling for action is just how nature works, they see the necessity and possibility to act.uan
- it's not any more 'shut down the industries', it's about let's change the way we produce energy. let us use a safe and clean method.uan
- I think i saw this picture regarding climate change viral stuff. But what does it mean? If you take the numbers and graph them based on time would it correlatedeathboy
- our weather? Or average temp? Was this localized and what type of measurements for such "pre-sci" era. is this just a aged 9 year old students paper about strawdeathboy
- s that every news station copied without fact checking because journalistic integrity still matters.deathboy
- I stand by the issue as being largely used for financial gain by a few people who have 0 regard for those it damages which are mostly the poordeathboy
- im not denying our effect on climate change, i deny our ability to control such a thing even with full compliance to any party who says they know howdeathboy
- but we are a system in this planet. our growth has happened do to our choices. to rescind those choices by law or decree might effectively eliminate many ppldeathboy
- or in france create social unrest which might create other issues. the idea we can change our methods against current systems and feel no pain is stupid.deathboy
- the route proposed as if you havent noticed is shit ton of tax incentives for rich while fucking the poor. that will never end well. so many more poor than richdeathboy
- one reason you get populist shit like trump. forget the feel goodies. only look at it logically. also consider people who wrote articles earth was flat back thadeathboy
- n probably use those in the same way they might justify a stupid ideadeathboy
- ah mono. the lonely annoying turd on a sidewalk. you try an avoid it because its shit, but cant help thinking who leaves this shit here. guess shit happensdeathboy
- difference is today we have alternatives.
Humans are of nature. What says our by products are not of nature too? Why do we look of nature in retrospect and not a equally changing and evolving system as much as us. We may choose economical solutions that harm our future, but we grow for now. Something about that is soooo millenial but is correct. We are a bit smarter in knowing we don't live as fodder for others. And can wave off traditional collective thinking. Our species is but a speck in time. The progress of all climate change rhetoric is purely out of special interests. And idea of controlling climate is absolutely absurd. However somehow those millenials got the catholic style guilt for living and hate themselves. I think people should ignore special interests and live in their best interests. And most importantly honestly with full understanding. Who's to say our trash or biomass wont be the oil for life hundreds of thousands of years after we kick it. Just do us and live as economically feasible as possible for all without arbitrary special interests. Just a thought from a guy who knows nature can handle her own shit.
- Watch the planet descend into inferno with the possibility of a reboot in 100,000 AD. What an empowering message, db.PeterPancake
- you're so high on your own erudition that you don't notice you're talking total nonsenseFax_Benson
- Hmm. I was hoping for a rebuttal about how we see what is natural. Might be a little world is flat view to only see what was before as naturaldeathboy
- to ignore our our role as larger process even if its our corpses. We study seasons and fruit fly, but hard to swallow we might just be a process as welldeathboy
Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns
A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.
Impacts on our health:
Higher temperatures will also kill more people, the report says. The Midwest alone, which is predicted to have the largest increase in extreme temperature, will see an additional 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090.
Heat and flooding:
Wildfire seasons -- already longer and more destructive than before -- could burn up to six times more forest area annually by 2050 in parts of the United States. Burned areas in Southwestern California alone could double by 2050.