Nobody is adopting you moron
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Nobody is adopting you moron
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
did you mean "adaptation"?
...what do you mean by "adoption". we shouldn't be procreating?
I think he meant adopting new arrivals from the huge waves of migration these changes will cause soon enough
By adoption, or adaptation --I'm thinking Americans all move to BC. We'll see how xyz thinks about adaptation then.
fify
by the way I don't disagree with xyz that the lack of serious action makes the future look bleak. But I think the prospect for adapting is just as bleak, if not more so. So even if things seem hopeless we have to try. And hope that big brains and tool making never evolve again. Not sure how I feel about opposable thumbs.
xyz is advocating against any change or action. To xyz, change is only palatable if it passes the purest of purity tests. Any one involved in change must have the carbon footprint of a Middle Ages monk, the change must not cause any inconvenience or disruption to how things currently are and lastly it must not involve any governmental funding or regulation.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I think what he's really saying is that if all we have is individual action the situation is hopeless. Which it is. And that government isn't doing anything, which it isn't. So what's the point. I would say that the most important thing we can do is force govt to act, much more important than buying an electric car or forgoing air travel. But collective action is a hard concept for a lot of North Americans to grasp.
He's trying to say there's no hope so don't bother to try. Doomism is the new climate denial. If you can't disprove the reality of climate change you can still prevent action by making people think there's no hope or that any change will be too painful. It is bullshit and he knows it but he's doing it on purpose.
Even if he's talking about adaptation rather than adoption, there is no way to adapt our way out of ever worsening climate damage. Yes, we need to do more to adapt to the damages we've already caused and will cause while we move towards net zero but if we don't work to stop emissions it will be impossible to "adopt" to climate change.
If you had a clue about the environment or climate, you'd know the AMOC has been studied and discussed for quite a while. It is an issue, but that doesn't fit your biased confirmation based "science theories"
This is all very gradual, like a frog boiling in water....
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/amoc.html
The entire circulation cycle of the AMOC, and the global conveyor belt, is quite slow. It takes an estimated 1,000 years for a parcel (any given cubic meter) of water to complete its journey along the belt. Even though the whole process is slow on its own, there is some evidence that the AMOC is slowing down further. NOAA funds research to better understand this potential slowing, as well as to investigate the AMOC’s role in coastal sea level changes and its relationship to extreme events.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/featu...hows-weakening
About the Models Used
The researchers used NOAA’s CM2.6 global climate model to identify the characteristic sea surface temperature (SST) fingerprint associated with an AMOC weakening in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. The model results were compared to observed SST evolution since the late nineteenth century. The CM2.6 model provides very high resolution, which means the realism of the model is greater than many other models currently in use. For example, the ocean bottom is more accurately represented in the CM2.6 model compared to lower resolution models.
The study authors then used a group of global climate models known as CMIP5 to test and calibrate a revised AMOC index. The reconstruction of the evolution of the AMOC from 1870 to 2016 reveals the record low in the past few years and is consistent with direct measurements since 1995 from a number of AMOC studies using different methods.
NOAA’s CM2.6 model is being used for a variety of fisheries studies on the impact of ocean temperatures on lobsters, scallops, various fish species, leatherback sea turtles, and other animals. The model’s high spatial resolution enables researchers to look much more closely at ocean features in regions like the Gulf of Maine or along the Northeast U.S. Shelf than other models, which have a lower ocean resolution and can miss the finer details.
Honestly, a sudden global financial collapse due to entirely predictable outcomes of late-stage capitalism would be fairly good for our climate problem
XYZ is just another loser Canadian who doesn’t understand the awesome power of the USA once we set our minds to something. I don’t know why people automatically assume that nothing can be done about climate change when we have a history of being able to clean up our messes once we get motivated.
The Cuyahoga River was so polluted it caught fire. Now people are using the river and Cleveland’s water front is much nicer despite still being in Cleveland. Similar deal with the Charles River and other massively polluted rivers throughout the US.
1970’s brought acid rain to the Adirondack’s where we camped. Decimated small ponds and wildlife associated with it. Updates to power plants in the mid west allowed these ponds and forests to recover.
We used some much DDT that we almost completely killed off our national symbol, the bald eagle. Despite the naysayers saying banning DDT would wreak havoc, we are still cranking and the bald eagle has rebounded.
The hole in the ozone layer is slowing repairing itself after a global effort. Again the nervous Nellie’s were up in arms about losing their hair spray and air conditioners. Turns out we were able to find alternatives and we seemed to have stopped damaging the ozone even though it’s taking time to repair.
These were just a few examples I’ve seen in my lifetime. At every step there were people like XYZ that complained it wasn’t worth doing anything or it was too expensive. Each time they were proven wrong. Our economy kept growing, our standard of living has never been higher. Unfortunately it takes extreme examples like a river on fire or thousands of dead bald eagles to motivate Americans.
We can reduce the impact of human caused climate change but it will take all of us and our governments acting in unison. History has shown us that we can clean up our messes if we get motivated enough. And we can still grow our economy and improve our standard of living. Guess I’m just an optimist but there are plenty of examples where we have succeeded.
Or another pandemic. It worked a bit during early covid and during historical economic declines.
Those were all great achievements. But none of them required a world wide overhaul of current lifestyle, for the worse. Switching hair sprays ain’t gonna cut this time. To meet these targets our lives really need to grind to a halt. There are no alternatives that let us carry on with our current lifestyles.
And this is much bigger than the just the USA. The world’s biggest players need to get their collective shit together. Also not gonna happen. All they’ve don’t so far is make unachievable promises, rolled out ineffective taxes, projects and targeted the farmers ffs. While blasting around in private jets.
I’m not in the camp of we are doomed so let’s burn it to the ground, do nothing etc. But I think it’s time to be realists. Governments aren’t going to save the day. And I doubt ALL the doomsday predictions will 100% come to fruition. Maybe only half of them will and maybe those will manageable. So I say let’s do our reasonable best to improve but stop pretending we can meet these net zero goals and stop believing ever single doomsday prediction is 100% guaranteed.
It pains me to agree but this is actually a pretty objective take
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I think it depends on how quickly things get bad. If we get a year with a bunch of catastrophic weather events across a wide stretch of the US maybe enough people will demand action. Sure seems like that is the direction we are headed in so it may happen sooner rather than later.
The point I was trying to convey is we can do it, sacrifices and all if we set our minds to it.
The tell on how well we’ll survive the coming decades is our food system security. Precip patterns are no longer predictable, and our main agriculture areas are already under severe pressure from drought and related issues (pests mainly). The aquifers are not being replenished quickly enough either. Like I said earlier - potable water followed by arable soil are our world population’s greatest challenges. We think we have issues with homelessness, just wait until there are a few billion starving people coming to knock on the door. The point above about fucking over farmers over carbon impacts bears repeating. Certainly some of our agriculture needs to change (meat production the most), but investment over penalties (and treaties/trade agreements) are what is needed to secure the global food system.
Blah blah blah It's hopeless blah blah it's too hard blah blah not worth trying to save a livable planet blah blah blah.
Is it going to be hard? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't do everything we can? No. Every tenth of a degree of warming we avoid will prevent a great deal of harm.
Bookmarks