| EricHiggin said: It's not always about what you can see right in front of you. Nasa can see the planet is greener than in the past. So more fires yet the planet remains to green even more so. Is that a problem? |
Er. Not everywhere is getting greener... And I am privy to datasets that you probably aren't on this topic.
And because I intend to use evidence going forth, I ask for you to do the same.
Now... Desertification is a growing problem... In short, it's where deserts are growing in size, often at the expense of greener/agricultural land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification
The Gobi desert for example is rapidly expanding, not getting greener, China has even tried to stem it's rapid growth by building a "great green wall" with mixed results.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/china-great-green-wall-gobi-tengger-desertification/
Who would have thought making a man-made forest would be so difficult when water is scarce and giant dust storms ravage the landscape? Sandblasting doesn't bode well for plant life.
The Sahara Desert, Atacama Desert, Chihuahuan Desert and others all increasing in size. Ouch.
Then you have other factors like the Amazon forest, which is not only being destroyed at unprecedented rates... But because it's being destroyed, it's micro-climate is also being impacted. - The Amazon actually makes it's own weather... Which means less rain.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-01215-3
The result? Well. NASA's satellites have noticed that the remaining forest is starting to "brown".
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210171716.htm
What happens when we destroy the entire thing? Well. It will likely never be able to become a forest again as it's hard to replicate that kind of climate on that particular latitude, just ask China.
So while yes, some parts of the world are getting "greener" - It's only small, low-laying vegetation, not vegetation of any significance.
| EricHiggin said: How intense and how frequent will they continue to get, and at what rate exactly? How many fires is too many? If we get carbon back down to past levels, will it stop naturally occurring fires? |
I live in the driest state on the driest continent in the world. - My particular region has some of the highest fuel loads per meter squared in the world.
On average we are seeing an increase of around 5~ wildfire incidents locally per year.
But other parts of the country which are ironically "rainforest" and in the tropical regions are now experiencing our conditions, resulting in catastrophic incidents...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-09/queensland-fires-sunshine-coast-stanthorpe-beechmont-binna-burra/11490356
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/09/like-nothing-weve-seen-queensland-bushfires-tear-through-rainforest
When I went on deployment, the fire agencies weren't prepared like we were as such conditions have never really happened, every year is getting more intense.
But how many? Well. You see, fire tends to assist in releasing more CO2... Australian vegetation is very adapted to it however, but other countries and their flora? Not so much.
In short, both issues above are resulting in a reduction in plant biodiversity, invasive species are increasing those pressures as well of course.
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/plant-species-in-biodiversity-hotspots-declining-up-to-350-times-faster-than-historical-average/
| EricHiggin said: Have you not read the new green deal? Tell me that will at the very least keep things the same, if not make them better for the foreseeable future. |
I try not to. Only so much moaning I can tolerate in a day.
In saying that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
Probably not enough? But I guess something is better than nothing.
| EricHiggin said: There are plenty of things people could do to benefit themselves and/or profit, yet they don't, and we don't force them to either. |
When people do (Like Sony) people complain. This thread is evidence of it.
| EricHiggin said: If you mean efficiency in general, then yes, that's fine for the most part, but solving a pollution problem with more pollution isn't a legitimate answer, so we're told, because the end is upon us, apparently. Otherwise allowing another say, 20 years, for renewable and carbon tech to reach maturity and beyond, would be acceptable. |
The end? Not quite. But there are legitimate concerns over the long term.
Sea levels are rising by about 3.2mm-3.5mm per year.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Over a 30 year period, that kind of increase does add up... Islands will be disappearing, coastal areas will be under thread, flood incidents will become more common.
https://medium.com/@riad.meddeb/disappearing-islands-what-happens-to-their-nations-and-people-f318c374188
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/one-day-disappear-tuvalu-sinking-islands-rising-seas-climate-change
Pollution is already a problem though...
4.2~ million people die from air-pollution issues every year, world wide.
https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
Animals are being captured with ingested plastics.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/05/microplastics-impact-on-fish-shown-in-pictures/
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/plastic-microparticles-fish-flesh-eaten-humans-food-chain-mackerel-anchovy-mullet-a7860726.html
Rivers, like this one in India are becoming heavily polluted and are having difficulty in sustaining local life.
https://www.kent.co.in/blog/the-most-polluted-rivers-of-india/
But the largest issue is run-away loop effects... The Oceans absorb a substantial amount of CO2. - But as the Oceans warm, their ability to hold the CO2 decreases due to a myriad of reasons.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
Not only that, but basic thermodynamics and physics in general basically tells us the warmer water gets, the more it expands, increasing sea-level rise.
| EricHiggin said: Then no decision can be made period. Going with or against climate change now is a gamble. |
It's not a gamble.
You either support the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that 97% of the worlds scientists support... Or you are anti-evidence, anti-scientific and you have a high probability of being incorrect.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
In saying that... Lets say we take action in pushing for greener initiatives from top-to-bottom in society, world-wide.... And it turns out Climate Change was incorrect. - We would have left the world in a better, more sustainable, cleaner state for future generations.
The opposite of course would be if we did nothing and sat on our laurels and it turned out Climate Change was a very real problem, millions/billions of lives would be effected, guess what the economy would potentially look like then?
| EricHiggin said: Really because this says it was conservatives who saved the world. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/conservatives-ozone-montreal-protocol-1.4409482 |
The Montreal Protocol is a progressive piece of legislation, lets not sugar coat it. It's also a green initiative.
A conservative government here introduced gun control... There are various reasons why a conservative party/government may take a progressive stance on something, often due to factions within their party pushing for something.
| EricHiggin said: Well when the majority of the world has reached consensus about climate change, it will happen as before, but until then, it's business as per usual. |
See above. 97% of the worlds climate scientists is a damn strong consensus.
| EricHiggin said: Traveling was the lead up, and planning to have colonies there was the point. Those colonies will not be self sustaining for a considerable period of time, if ever, and will require being supplied from Earth. If climate change is such a problem, and it's now or never, yet it's not being attended to, then why are people wasting time with future plans in general, let alone space travel and planetary colonization? |
We just aren't there yet.
But we can halt the increasing issue that is climate change.
| EricHiggin said: Same with gun violence, but is it the guns, the politics, the media, the people, etc? |
A mix of all of the above.
| EricHiggin said: I disagree. I'd say for those who don't pay now, if man made climate change is proven to be as some proclaim, then they pay more later on to make up for it, one way or another. That way if the 'climate deniers' are right, they don't need to lose anything for no reason. If they are wrong, the people fully on board who saved the planet, get to profit from their investment, as you stated earlier. |
It's been proven. Scientifically.
Climate deniers aren't loosing anything, there is money to be made by going green.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
