Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Dayton3, Mar 18, 2019.
I don't live anywhere near the gulf coast. Or any other coast for that matter.
There is this cool practice that was developed thousands of years ago.
It is called "irrigation".
I can post a link with information about it if you wish.?
Have you ever seen a map? You're fairly close to it, close enough to be affected by storms.
Water comes from the rain cycle, if there is no rain, there is no rain cycle and then water reserves run low. If water reserves run too low, there is no irrigation. Someone who has fucked as many farm animals as you should have picked up on some basics of how farming works.
desalination powered by nuclear power plants. 75 year old technology.
man you are one stupid bitch.
No offense intended.
I think I recall reading that Hurricane Camille (what was that 1969) killed at least two people in my state.
I’m sure everyone can afford that too.
I think another big part of the problem is that people can't conceptualise large numbers. Billions of people across millions of square miles, it seems limitless.
Here's another way of breaking it down.
Using 2017 figures, for each human being on the planet Earth there is less that 5 square acres of land each. Specifically 4.874 acres per person.
Taking away Antarctica, that drops down to 4.4 acres per person, each plot having the range of conditions that exist across the inhabited parts of our planet.
Assuming we use every bit of that land, that 4.4 acres has to supply each person with food, water, energy, and mined/harvested resources.
That's already tight - and it's our current situation.
Why does a solution have to be for "everyone". If you're talking about maintaining the human race especially.
Really? 4 acres can grow enough food for a fairly good sized family, provide space for rain water collection, and enough space for solar panels to supply the needs of that family pretty handily.
Clearly, since we currently have enough resources to sustain the world population.
If you assume the land is like your local North American conditions then it's much easier as well.
Remember that if it's being averaged out part of that 4 acres per person looks like this:
These is a CIA Factbook image breaking down the percentages of land worldwide that are considered arable.
It's more about taking the numbers we are talking about in relation to the Earth and putting them in a context we can understand.
That doesn't seem terribly tight to me.
We could feed everyone on Earth now comfortably with the land we have, so yeah.
However it should make it easier to conceptualise how conditions getting less favourable could suddenly make it a lot more difficult when that is the only space you have.
Because unlike you, I actually care about protecting as many people as possible. You seem to find many people to be acceptable losses, not yourself though. Maybe you should off yourself.
I do believe that. Our planet has seen several mass extinctions already and we couldn't even begin to develop technological solutions to all the cumulative effects of climate change, not to mention that we aren't just looking at one or two degrees, not since we already have a number of self supporting feedback loops in play.
We need oxygen, we need pollinators, we need temperatures which allow for crop growth, we need viable inland fresh water on a scale orders of magnitude beyond that which we can summon technologically
In terms of the life span of our planet thus far the human race has been around for the tiniest blink of an eye, there's no reason to suppose we have some special place here or manifest destiny, on the contrary thousands upon thousands of more robust and long lived species than us have died out and are doing so to this day.
Of course, scientists in related fields share data and read each others' work. So what?
There are many ways in which the culture of academia can lead to bias, but outright mass fabrication of data on the scale we are talking about, fabrication consistently requiring cooperation from people working in different countries under different employers and different funding streams is frankly on the order of flat earth theorising.
I honestly thought you posted that link ironically, I didn't imagine you were actually using it as an actual source.
I thought overpopulation was supposedly one of the root causes of all these environmental problems?
And underpopulation is a likely result.
So when there's proof that artic sea ice comes back every year when alarmists say it doesn't you just , got it.
Given that you've put no thought into anything, I could see how confused you would be.
If they are using data that is faulty or omitted or doctored or what not, and they don't know it or don't care, they can then take that data and interpret to mean anything they want. It doesn't take a grand conspiracy, all it takes is a few peer reviewed papers with faulty data that gets passed around in academia. Throw in some bad computer model and deliberate lying from certain people who have an agenda plus the faulty hockey puck model and there you go. Every climate scientist will use that to conclude that a crisis exists when there really isn't one.
Nice argument, dipshit.
Just stating facts
Replicability is a fundamental underpinning of scientific practise and the wealth of data out there on the climate is so vast I don't even know where to start. There's no one landmark study which has become the defining moment of this, there's no reliance upon a single or even limited data source or set which could potentially invalidate the gestalt.
Literally thousands upon thousands of meteorological stations, military and scientific installations, satellites from dozens of nations and private companies, ecologists, biologists, atmospheric monitoring stations, even farmers are part of a picture which has been built up in meticulous detail over the course of decades.
That picture is based on crop yields, weather patterns, species extinctions and reductions, chemical analysis of biological matters of all kinds from every part of the globe, sea levels, forestation data, mean temperatures, severity of climate extremes, composition of oceanic waters, the list goes on and on.
Of course the models will need to be tweaked, some predictions will shift as the data is refined. That's why research is carrying on at such a massive scale, but what is in no meaningful doubt within the scientific community, a community made up of people who are every bit as conscious of the potential pitfalls and sources of error in their profession as you are, is that climate change is absolutely without doubt genuine and happening as a consequence of human activity.
Do you deny the members of that "community" have agendas that they advocate for?
There's that key word, it's all based on computer models which have been known to be wrong or create catastrophes that never pan out. People have been predicting catastrophe after catastrophe. They said there no sea ice in twenties then there's plenty of sea ice so on and so on. You can find examples of this over sever decades, it's almost as if its cyclical or something. Like I pointed out, Al Gore told us Florida would be underwater by now, it isn't. In the 70s they predicted an ice age by now, where's the glaciers?
So does the energy lobby who deny it. Much greater agendas with far larger sums attached.
They're also the ones who are trying to make a profit from their activity and whose agenda could be (is) dangerous. Scientists are by and large salaried and advance in their careers by virtue of the quality of their work, not its' political affiliation. Both are judged by their results, but "results" means very different things in each case. One has an agenda to maximise profits and has a long history of resisting anything which gets in the way of that, not matter how harmful. The other has an agenda to publish papers which are methodologically sound and whose results stand up to scrutiny from peers who are more often than not rivals. That agenda ultimately is how we get an approximation of truth and is responsible for the creation of virtually everything in our society more sophisticated than scratching in the mud to find worms to chew on. Which is, admittedly, quite good fun. The validity of science or its' methodology isn't on trial here.
We are talking here about a global data set, one which is consistent across disciplines whose paths rarely cross, in every country, everywhere and stretching back decades, long before there was such a thing as "climate science" (there isn't really, there are lots of disciplines all of which contribute a piece of the picture).
The only way for those disparate strands to come together so consistently, with such transparent and rigorous use of data and scientific methodology, against such an incredibly limited and much more blatantly agenda driven, not to mention largely anecdotal, opposing case is if the science is good.
Objecting to it really does require some jumping through mental hoops and it's no surprise that the majority of deniers go straight to politics and bypass the science, because the case is really not vulnerable on those grounds.
Computer models are the only way to do this work. They are based on the evidence and allow the formation and testing of hypotheses that would be too complex and chaotic to carry out using pencils and paper.
What would you suggest as an alternative? Waiting to see if it happens and then admitting you were wrong when it's too late?
Let's look at some aspect of this you can see for yourself. Part of the problem is the massive overuse and wastage of plastics which aren't biodegradable.
Did scientists fake these images?
How about the wildfires that keep mysteriously being of freakishly massive scales breaking all records year after year? Why is that? No trend of course, just a lot of unprecedented years recently. I imagine scientists probably started these?
You seriously believe that don't you? What about the Nuclear Winter concept and Carl Sagan and his fellow scientists? Who promoted the idea for political reasons when they knew full well that the science did NOT support it. Sagan some time later openly admitting that they had done so.
Computer models can never be wrong, right?
Of course they can. But like all science they get more and more accurate as hypotheses are refined, studies are carried out, data is compiled and technology advances.
Those models are getting more and more accurate as time goes by and specific predictions which can be tested (soil acidity, atmospheric carbon, mean temperatures, ice cap degradation, etc) are more and more often proving to hold up under testing.
I suppose you aren't going to claim these images are faked?
This spot was solid "ground" for centuries until recently:
and from overhead:
Separate names with a comma.