PS5 will be a "greener" console than PS4

[EricHiggin]

Pemalite said:

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.

The result? Well. NASA's satellites have noticed that the remaining forest is starting to "brown".

Now... Desertification is a growing problem... In short, it's where deserts are growing in size, often at the expense of greener/agricultural land.

So while yes, some parts of the world are getting "greener" - It's only small, low-laying vegetation, not vegetation of any significance.

I posted the Nasa greening link slightly earlier in the thread, and since you were active here, I figured you may have noticed it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

So instead of the planet being less green in more places, it's more green in some places and less green in others. So it's still balancing, just in a different manner. Sounds kind of like how manufacturing is still happening, just much less in some countries and more in others, so who cares if your job is gone? Life is about change so learn a new skill or trade and stop complaining, right? Should people have to deal with mother nature, or relocate if they don't like the present green distribution? What about those who say it's the future, period, and there's no stopping it, so get on board or be left behind?

What about periods like the "dust bowl" in America? Some poor farming methods are partially to blame, but mostly extended drought. Did man made climate change cause the drought, and did the drought ever end? How could it if things are just going to keep getting worse?

Agricultural land isn't vegetation of significance? That explains a lot...

Pemalite said:

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 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.

You didn't answer the question for the most part, and you don't say how much worse the extra fires are getting, if at all. Will other vegetation adapt as well?

Aren't humans an invasive species...? Does that 'problem' need to be solved?

Pemalite said:

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.

Probably not enough? But I guess something is better than nothing.

More like too much of both, unrealistic green objectives and general power grabs on the side while they're at it.

So President Trump would be better than no leader at all? What about Hitler?

Pemalite said:

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.

Just because you're benefiting yourself, doesn't in anyway guarantee you're benefiting others as well, like your customers.

Pemalite said:

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.

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.

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.

So 75 years for the seas to rise 1 foot then? How many islands that would be impacted by this aren't burning fossil fuels anymore, and haven't been for quite some time? If it's a worldwide problem, and they have little control or power over the seas, how many have left the islands knowing that's the smart thing to do, like you said, by predicting what's coming and do what's necessary in your power to stop it or avoid it if you can't stop it.

The planet used to be much warmer and had much more CO2 in the air, and wasn't near as green if you go far enough back. How did the planet cool itself down to where it was a couple of hundred years ago?

Pemalite said:

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.

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?

Climate scientists, not all scientists. To expect that people don't think certain scientists won't put forth BS for their careers sake is being unrealistic. It also doesn't necessarily mean you're anti evidence, because you just may be 'anti politics' for example, and therefore, due to their connection and ridiculous propositions, like the new green deal, not to mention corruption in general, many may just be skeptical, and rightfully so.

What if Einstein wasn't skeptical about Newtons science? Or should I say 'science'?

Sure, implement green policies for things like recycling or energy efficiency, but leave climate change out of it then. Trying to solve climate change would be a major undertaking and would cost a ton of money and time, only to find out it was all for nothing? That doesn't sound smart to me, yet it does sound overly cautious at the expense of others. Should America have been cautious by rounding up the Japanese during WWII and putting them in internment camps?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Really because this says it was conservatives who saved the world.

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.

So then there's no political stance to blame then, since either side can do good sometimes, and other times not so much?

Pemalite said:

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.

97% of what, .01% of the total? How certain are those climate scientists, and what are they willing to gamble to prove their certainty? Scientists don't control the world and certainly aren't politicians. I also think most would trust a businessman over a politician because at least they're taking a risk.

Pemalite said:

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.

Musk owns and runs a green energy auto, battery, and solar company, as well as a space exploration company. If Musk really thought climate change was going to be a serious problem in his lifetime, don't you think he would've put the space company on hold before it's inception, and focused fully on green energy and renewables? If he by some chance wasn't sure back then, if it became evident now or shortly, would he put the space company on hold, since we're so far from achieving another planet to call home?

Pemalite said:

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.

Yet the blame always goes to the guns, and guns are where 'progress' is made, by the politicians. The same politicians who make it clear that climate change is an immediate threat and if we don't do everything we can now we're all doomed. 

But I thought they were all part of the problem. Why isn't the rest getting fixed? Why isn't it even mentioned? Why is it being allowed to get worse?

Don't be a 'climate denier', say the politicians... along with, you're just a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Pemalite said:

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.

Proven science is 100%, is it not? Theorized, proven mathematically, and physically, multiple times by different people, correct? You apparently have 97% of the climate scientists who agree, and only on the theory for the most part. The math and physical scientific proof is far from 100% accurate.

Then the 'climate believers' can be the one's to profit. Just think about how wealthy they will all end up. Except, wait... they won't, because they are typically the type of people who believe in equality, like free everything for everyone?

Hmmm.