The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Wel... I'm certainly not going to disagree with Jordan Peterson.

15% more biomass this Century? Deserts are shrinking? Who knew?

Maybe Greta can stop hyperventilating.

The aside on who gets to decide who goes to Mars was interesting.

I'll disagree with everything he says.
* He's treating increased 'biomass' within a context which does nor represent what's actually taking place.
* It doesn't provide long-term carbon sequestration that we'd benefit by.
* He's excited about 'weeds' increasing by 15%, while ignoring the human bonfire larger than the entire planet, oceans and all.
* Food production is falling:
1) it doesn't matter how much CO2 'fertilizer' you give a plant, when it's so hot that photosynthesis ceases, and the plant's leaves stomata close off to retain moisture, ending growth.
2) some crops fortunate to 'grow' are now 'killed' by atmospheric rivers, blizzards, loss of pollinators, floods, hail, heat waves, drought, erosion, poisoning, new pests which never lived in areas which were recently 'cooler' than they are now, and invasive plants which compete for soil moisture and nutrients.
3) The oceanic food chain is collapsing.
4) Food trees, which rely on a certain temperature regime, cannot 'un-plant' themselves, and move northwards, or to higher elevations to escape rising temperatures.
5) Mountain glaciers which create the rivers used to irrigate crops are disappearing, and the food crops along with them.
6) Crops are of no use if the overheated people who harvest them die of renal failure in the fields, because they can't drink enough water to protect their kidneys.
7) Decades of mega-drought have lowered (water of last resort ) aquifers, which may not recharge, even if there's 30-feet of mountain snow, as it all melt before spring, and just run off into the ocean.
It goes on.

[oil pan 4]

The gain or loss of invasive species relocated by people is not climate change.
People suddenly dieing from climate change is not climate change.
More population depleting aquifers faster is not climate change.

[redpoint5]

Here's my response to someone on another forum yesterday.

“Unless we really do it [drastic CO2 reduction] immediately, it will not be possible to limit warming to 1.5 degrees."

That does not sound doomsday to you? I know you believe in climate change, the problem is you don't think it is a problem.

If I listened to a nuclear proliferation expert say that if we don't urgently intervene in Iran's uranium enrichment program, they will have a nuclear warhead in a decade, do I interpret that to be a doomsday observation?

If I listen to an expert epidemiologist say that infection is a more urgent matter than nuclear proliferation, do I believe them?

If I listen to an expert in artificial intelligence say that AI is the biggest threat to humanity, do I believe them?

If I listen to an expert in marine biology explain how dwindling fish populations is the biggest problem humanity faces, do I believe them?

If I listen to an astronomer explain that solar flares are the biggest threat to humanity, do I believe them?

What you're not understanding is that every expert makes their area of expertise into the most important topic, because they have to. Just because I'm not constantly running around with my hair on fire because humanity faces a near infinite number of threats doesn't mean I don't believe in the problems.

Rather, I think that reflects more on others susceptibility to be manipulated into believing any particular thing is the biggest problem. I don't begrudge people for their perception of what threats are most concerning to them. Just don't impose it on me. I'm not required to worry at any particular level about any particular threat.

We're not going to achieve any arbitrarily chosen level of drastic CO2 reduction globally in the next decade. Lots of solvable problems are still on the list though. We could probably do something meaningful about global starvation, for instance. There's a good argument to be made for massive investments from governments around the world to develop next-gen nuclear power generation. If we solve the cheap, abundant, and low polluting energy production problem, that positively impacts basically everything on the list of problems.

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'll disagree with everything he says.

Peterson starts out by saying global temperature seems to be rising and that humans have some responsibility for that. You disagree with that?

* He's treating increased 'biomass' within a context which does nor represent what's actually taking place.
* It doesn't provide long-term carbon sequestration that we'd benefit by.
* He's excited about 'weeds' increasing by 15%, while ignoring the human bonfire larger than the entire planet, oceans and all.
* Food production is falling:
1) it doesn't matter how much CO2 'fertilizer' you give a plant, when it's so hot that photosynthesis ceases, and the plant's leaves stomata close off to retain moisture, ending growth.

You acknowledge increased growth in one breath, and then proceed to talk about decreased growth. Which is it? Somehow only weeds will grow better, but absolutely everything we value will suffer? What is the scientific explanation for only plants valued by humans suffering, but all other plants thriving? I haven't read that study yet.

3) The oceanic food chain is collapsing.

Overfishing is not attributable to global warming.

4) Food trees, which rely on a certain temperature regime, cannot 'un-plant' themselves, and move northwards, or to higher elevations to escape rising temperatures.

We're not talking about an eviction notice requiring trees to vacate next month, we're talking about gradual temperature increase over hundreds of years. Trees can respond over hundreds of years.

Besides all that, we're not hunter/gatherers, we're agrarians. We put the food plants where we want them immediately.

6) Crops are of no use if the overheated people who harvest them die of renal failure in the fields, because they can't drink enough water to protect their kidneys.

I haven't seen that dystopian sci-fi yet. Doesn't sound like an interesting plot-line by itself.

[freebeard]

Weeds are by definition simply plants growing where you don't want them.

https://www.bbc.com › travel › article › 20151207-ecuadors-mysterious-walking-trees
Trees that can walk up to 20m per year - BBC Travel
While some scientists debate whether these trees walk, Peter Vrsansky, a palaeobiologist from the Earth Science Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratisla, claims to have seen this...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The gain or loss of invasive species relocated by people is not climate change.
People suddenly dieing from climate change is not climate change.
More population depleting aquifers faster is not climate change.

As the climate changes, and 'local'/'regional' environments change such that, species which formerly could not survive there, now can; invasive plants, pests, and disease can compete for sun, soil moisture, nutrients. They come in because the conditions which formerly barred their entry no longer exist. They weren't 'relocated.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cane-cutters in Guatemala are dying from heat-index values which have never been seen since weather recordkeeping began.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with extant population demands, the aquifers held there own until the mega-drought kicked in. Recent massive rains and snow may not be any guarantee of aquifer recharge, if mountain freeze-lines continue to climb higher, with heat nipping at their heels, and early melt denies rivers water.
It's happening right now in Africa, Pakistan, the Rockies, the Andes, and China.

[freebeard]

Cane-cutters in Guatemala are dying from heat-index values which have never been seen since weather recordkeeping began.

Guatemala not big on Personal Protective Equipment and labor standards?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Guatemala not big on Personal Protective Equipment and labor standards?

Seems like that problem could be solved using tractors with AC conditioned cabs.

[freebeard]

For the cost of one tractor you could have hundreds of these:

i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/dd/61/f0dd614fde97f38788faa0bae8f53390.jpg

Cool the head and cool the lungs:

image.assets.pressassociation.io/v2/image/production/79f538b3068314ac431a82ee4e6e2733Y29udGVudHNlYXJjaC wxNTg3NjQ2Njk0/2.53279500.jpg

Lots of CO-VID PPE lying around.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

For the cost of one tractor you could have hundreds of these:

The point being that hacking at sugarcane with a machete is the inefficient way.

Sounds like they need marketplaces so that efficiencies in all areas can be realized and well-being improved.

[oil pan 4]

Nuclear proliferation is a BS excuse.
Any regional power can breed uranium 233.
Enriching uranium just allows states to build a lot of weapons fast.
It's low budget, low tech and not very fast.

Working people to death in sugar cane fields has been going on for as long as sugar cane has been cultivated and people subjugated. Plus I'm hearing lots of reports of methamphetamine use in south America is exploding and is so common it's an accepted method of partial payment for workers.
Getting all hopped up on crank and heat stroking your self isn't climate change.