| Earth’s oceans are under severe strain from climate change, a major new United Nations report warns, which threatens everything from the ability to harvest seafood to the well-being of hundreds of millions of people living along the coasts. Rising temperatures are contributing to a drop in fish populations in many regions, and oxygen levels in the ocean are declining while acidity levels are on the rise, posing risks to important marine ecosystems, according to the report issued Wednesday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders in policymaking. In addition, warmer ocean waters, when combined with rising sea levels, threaten to fuel ever more powerful tropical cyclones and floods, the report said, further imperiling coastal regions and worsening a phenomenon that is already contributing to storms like Hurricane Harvey, which devastated Houston two years ago. “We are an ocean world, run and regulated by a single ocean, and we are pushing that life support system to its very limits through heating, deoxygenation and acidification,” said Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a leading environmental group that tracks the status of plant and animal species, in response to the report. The report, which was written by more than 100 international experts and is based on more than 7,000 studies, represents the most extensive look to date at the effects of climate change on oceans, ice sheets, mountain snowpack and permafrost. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/climate/climate-change-oceans-united-nations.html welp inb4 man made climate change is still a hoax or the science of it is not yet settled |
| There's only one way to stop the Earth from dying: - Get rid of air conditioning in the summer / heating in the winter - Increase taxes to 500% - Get rid of all cars & airplanes - Stop white people from having children - Flood western nations with third world migrants - Relocate all dissidents and skeptics of our new policies into concentration camps |
 |
Bayek said: Don't forget banning the consumption of meat because "muh cow farts"There's only one way to stop the Earth from dying: - Get rid of air conditioning in the summer / heating in the winter - Increase taxes to 500% - Get rid of all cars & airplanes - Stop white people from having children - Flood western nations with third world migrants - Relocate all dissidents and skeptics of our new policies into concentration camps |
 |
Lost_Viking said: Bayek said: Don't forget banning the consumption of meat because "muh cow farts"There's only one way to stop the Earth from dying: - Get rid of air conditioning in the summer / heating in the winter - Increase taxes to 500% - Get rid of all cars & airplanes - Stop white people from having children - Flood western nations with third world migrants - Relocate all dissidents and skeptics of our new policies into concentration camps Ah yes the number one proposal from the left, totally not a strawman so you can distract from the geniune discourse around the actual issue of human caused climate change. |
  ｍａｌ'ｓ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｒａｃｃｏｏｎ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｂｏｏｐ ! ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｔａｎｔ ｙｅａｒ ｏｆ ２０２６ ｔｈｅＣＹＢＥＲ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｅ ａｆｔｅｒ ｍｅ ! |
| @Bayek nah just using more solar and wind power that are getting cheaper and cheaper are enough to lessen the dependence on burning fossil fuels that is getting more expensive now a days anyway Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change and this 100 companies are majority fossil fuel makers @Lost_Viking lab grown meat and plant base meat are getting as tasty and cheaper anyway |
Bayek said: There's only one way to stop the Earth from dying: - Get rid of air conditioning in the summer / heating in the winter - Increase taxes to 500% - Get rid of all cars & airplanes - Stop white people from having children - Flood western nations with third world migrants - Relocate all dissidents and skeptics of our new policies into concentration camps Or just nuke China entirely. Billions less air breathers and less gas emission from their industries. |
| @RogueCitizen64 alright so its just an obvious thing and not some groundbreaking revelation |
| Its funny that the green industry has become a bigger bully than big oil ever was. New boss, same as the old boss. |
 |
deg said: the science of it is not yet settled Biggest straw man ever that makes it sound as if people are supposedly doubting the science behind the greenhouse effect OR that the greenhouse effect supposedly equals whatever prediction the climate scientists made. Both are wrong. I'd like to remind the people that the "last step" of "climate science", which is the prediction of the climate's development in the future, is not science. I am not saying that it's a science hoax or anything. I am saying that it ISN'T "science" in the first place. At worst it's pure esothericsm like looking into a crystal ball and "mystically seeing the future". At best it's an "educated guess" on the level of predicting the stock market or calculating the odds at a betting market, in other words, it's gambling. And what's being used as a gambling chip in this case is the economy. No matter how competent the scientists claim to be, you can't both claim that "the human element is definitly present" and then continue to claim that "you can nigh-perfectly predict the future of this thing that includes the human element", because in all other areas, the human element has always proven to be making whatever it is a part of to be unpredictable. Is there any reason to believe that it's different for climate predictions? If so I'd be eager to hear/read that. |
Grey-ZoneSep 26, 2019 9:53 PM
 |
Grey-Zone said: deg said: the science of it is not yet settled Biggest straw man ever that makes it sound as if people are supposedly doubting the science behind the greenhouse effect OR that the greenhouse effect supposedly equals whatever prediction the climate scientists made. Both are wrong. I'd like to remind the people that the "last step" of "climate science", which is the prediction of the climate's development in the future, is not science. I am not saying that it's a science hoax or anything. I am saying that it ISN'T "science" in the first place. At worst it's pure esothericsm like looking into a crystal ball and "mystically seeing the future". At best it's an "educated guess" on the level of predicting the stock market or calculating the odds at a betting market, in other words, it's gambling. And what's being used as a gambling chip in this case is the economy. lol i have to quote this one, wow climate science is just gambling in casinos and stock market when climate science is one of the so called hard science that uses chaos theory and its ironic you are using the butterfly effect as your profile picture |
deg said: Grey-Zone said: Biggest straw man ever that makes it sound as if people are supposedly doubting the science behind the greenhouse effect OR that the greenhouse effect supposedly equals whatever prediction the climate scientists made. Both are wrong. I'd like to remind the people that the "last step" of "climate science", which is the prediction of the climate's development in the future, is not science. I am not saying that it's a science hoax or anything. I am saying that it ISN'T "science" in the first place. At worst it's pure esothericsm like looking into a crystal ball and "mystically seeing the future". At best it's an "educated guess" on the level of predicting the stock market or calculating the odds at a betting market, in other words, it's gambling. And what's being used as a gambling chip in this case is the economy. lol i have to quote this one, wow climate science is just gambling in casinos and stock market when climate science is one of the so called hard science that uses chaos theory and its ironic you are using the butterfly effect as your profile picture You are proving my point by essentially saying "OMG YOU DENY GREENHOUSE EFFECT U CLIMATE DENIER!" while ironically completely ignoring the part where I call out the strawman you are making right now and that I am exclusively refering to only the prediction. Thanks for nothing, buddy. Again there is NOTHING "hard science" about predictions of the future. It's not even "soft science". It's not science at all. Infact from what I heard science concluded that scientifically speaking predicting the future isn't really possible because you cannot observe both the positions and movements of matter at the same time. |
Grey-ZoneSep 26, 2019 10:00 PM
|
Grey-Zone said: deg said: lol i have to quote this one, wow climate science is just gambling in casinos and stock market when climate science is one of the so called hard science that uses chaos theory and its ironic you are using the butterfly effect as your profile picture You are proving my point by essentially saying "OMG YOU DENY GREENHOUSE EFFECT U CLIMATE DENIER!" while ironically completely ignoring the part where I call out the strawman you are making right now and that I am exclusively refering to only the prediction. Thanks for nothing, buddy. Again there is NOTHING "hard science" about predictions of the future. It's not even "soft science". It's not science at all. Infact from what I heard science concluded that scientifically speaking predicting the future isn't really possible because you cannot observe both the positions and movements of matter at the same time. lol you are confusing quantum physics (that uncertainty principle) with classical physics and chaos theory is part of classical physics which climate science uses EDIT: quantum physics is about the micro world like atoms and subatomic particles while classical physics is about the macro world or anything bigger than atoms or molecules dude for real you should probably google the basics or gist of some of this science stuff especially hard science if a layman like me with average IQ of 80 living in a 3rd world country can understand this stuffs by googling then you should too since i know you have higher IQ than me anyway |
degSep 26, 2019 10:45 PM
deg said: lol you are confusing quantum physics (that uncertainty principle) with classical physics and chaos theory is part of classical physics which climate science uses That makes it even worse. You know how any chaotic algorithms, even if technically "deterministic" can skew the endresult into a far off direction? We don't even know if humanity knows all relevant variables when it comes to the climate. What we do know might be good enough to more or less determine cause and effect of the climate in the present and past. But predicting it? No way. There is the black box called "unknowns" that we are missing for that - and the biggest issue is that we don't even know HOW BIG that black box is. Though if it's about solutions that both sides can agree on, I wouldn't be opposed to going for GenIV Nuclear Power if it's really as safe as they say, escpacially since it can appearently even recycle some of the already stored nuclear waste and got a significantly lower half-time, supposedly making the resulting new waste harmless in a bit over a hundred years. deg said: if a layman like me with average IQ of 80 living in a 3rd world country can understand this stuffs by googling then you should too since i know you have higher IQ than me anyway It was just an addendum anyway. My main point was that any predictions are not "science", period. You cannot apply the scientific method on them. Strictly speaking you cannot do that when it comes to comparing our current scenario with "how the climate would be now if humanity never industrilized or never existed in the first place", but I'll let that slide for now because I don't know how exactly the climate scientists reached the man-made climate change conclusion, so it'd be unfair to accuse them in that respect. |
Grey-ZoneSep 26, 2019 11:02 PM
|
| @Grey-Zone Chaos theory tells us that when it comes to chaotic systems, it is never possible to be certain of our predictions. But the closer we get to a particular event, the more chance we have of predicting it accurately. That's why short term weather reports tend to be much more accurate than longer term reports. http://www.shawndove.com/chaos-theory/ and the scientific prediction right now is that 10-12 years from now if nothing changes then man made climate change will worsen so that is short term prediction right? so it will be more accurate given the nature of chaos theory prediction when it comes to the average weather patterns or climate in this case |
| @deg The thing is that what you just quoted, while true, only applies to chaotic systems where you are aware of the complete set of variables involved and are just worried about their precision. That's not the case here because humanity doesn't have the "complete set" of all variables involving the climate and how the climate changes. Humanity might know 80% or maybe it's even 99%. But it's definitly not 100%. If the understanding was 100% then the quote you posted would apply here and margins of error would be the issue, however since there is no objective way to determine whether humanity is still missing "parts of the puzzle" in regards to how the climate works. It's far more likely than not that there is still some part missing or misinterpreted, hence the result will be way off due to some variables likely completely missing or parts of the formulas being wrong due to misinterpretation. So the truth of the matter is "greenhouse gases have a negative impact on the climate" is a true statement and we know that it causes problems. But the question of the "extent", i.e. the speed of it, is not actually determinable with humanity's current methods. To be fair though, that means it could possibly even be shorter than predicted, so I agree doing something about it now. I am not against it. Unfortunately a lot of very, very dumb "solutions" have been presented in the past and there were cases of climate scientists trying to decide economic policy, which obviously wouldn't work out well. The sad bit is that even THIS specific complaint about the "how to solve the problem after accepting the existence of the problem" was often dismissed as "climate science denial" as well, which is one of the main reasons other than the fossil fuel industry interefering for their own interests, that there are a lot more skeptics in general than there could have been if the right people had been tasked with the real solutions without involving politics. |
|
| @Grey-Zone dude there is no such thing as 100% complete data when it comes to data gathering and you know that thats why scientific predictions uses statistics with the terms like margin of error you just said, even the discovery of the higgs boson and gravitational waves is not 100% sure that there is still margin of error but scientists said in laymans term that they exist period the reason climate science is hard science is because it uses hard data and more rigorous statistics and math thats about it its not like soft data (use by soft science like economics and psychology) that came from online polls/survey or any personal anecdotes that are just generalize and nah the solution the scientists are saying is use nuclear energy and renewable energy like solar and wind power since fossil fuels are getting expensive too anyway |
deg said: @Grey-Zone dude there is no such thing as 100% complete data when it comes to data gathering and you know that thats why scientific predictions uses statistics with the terms like margin of error you just said, even the discovery of the higgs boson and gravitational waves is not 100% sure that there is still margin of error but scientists said in laymans term that they exist period the reason climate science is hard science is because it uses hard data and more rigorous statistics and math thats about it its not like soft data (use by soft science like economics and psychology) that came from online polls/survey or any personal anecdotes that are just generalize and nah the solution the scientists are saying is use nuclear energy and renewable energy like solar and wind power since fossil fuels are getting expensive too anyway There is a massive difference between a variable being off "by a few decimals" and "missing a variable completely", escpacially in chaotic systems like this. I mean even in stock market speculation and trading, the goal isn't to "predict the market all the time" but rather to "get it right more often than not", i.e. having a success rate above 50%, whereupon you'd make a profit (might be slightly higher neccessary percentage if you include transaction costs though). I just don't see how climate predicions can be more precise than stock market predictions. Both use models that "predict the past" yet they are still a lot of time unable to predict the future almost half the time. Even on the stock market there are many or perhaps "most", who even fail to pass the 50% mark and ruin themselves financially. It sounds outright arrogant to claim to be able to do better than that without really explaining why THEIR predictions are superior to predictions in other areas. I think most people would be satisfy if that sort of explanation was given, but I didn't see anything like that yet. As for the solution, yes, now they improved on that front, but I am talking about the early stages when the climate change issue started becoming an international issue for real. Back then the solutions were not that optimal. You mention nuclear but nuclear was dismissed early on as well and only recently gets accepted as a "acceptable risk". Instead, earlier it was basically free marketing for the "green industry" to the point I am still unsure if that "green industry" didn't have a hand in how the issue was framed early on, though I notice with nucelar being more popular now that that "green" influence isn't as strong as it used to be. |
|
| I like the solution to climate change people are coming up with. More solar panels and wind turbines. It's like they have no concept of reality. The warming of the world is gradual and unavoidable, and with most things the human species will adapt over time. What are you worried about? |
SpamuraiSenseiSep 27, 2019 3:03 AM
| @Grey-Zone although chaos theory are all applied to climate, weather and stock market predictions im sure each of those branches of science have their own definition of near-term prediction that chaos theory is good at predicting like i mean the stock market near-term prediction will just be minutes to even seconds compared to the near-term prediction of the weather that can be hours although this answer is based on me watching news about the stock market and the weather that i observed this stuff that i think climate near-term prediction is in the span of few years like a decade |
SpamuraiSensei said: I like the solution to climate change people are coming up with. More solar panels and wind turbines. It's like they have no concept of reality. The warming of the world is gradual and unavoidable, and with most things the human species will adapt over time. What are you worried about? . No species lasts forever. It's a bad idea to think we're so special. We're basiclally nothing but a parasitic bipedal monkey. ----------- Old news is old. As long politicians like money and power, nothing will happen at all. |
| Sorry, due to licensing limitations, this message is unavailable in your region. Please come drink tea, eat cake and procrastinate at the Cute Girls Doing Cute Things Club. We have simulwatches! \o/  |
| Sad, some people don't bother with the drop in fishes... Because they are more into eating those ocean cleaners and sewage meat like crab, lobster, oysters... |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |