Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Climate Emergency

1484951535476

Comments

  • Chizz said:
    I don't know if you're deliberately misunderstanding the data. If you don't know what percentile or per capita mean, then maybe it's not worth looking at the data. 

    The summary, which I think everyone else understands, is that the 1% of people responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for an extraordinary large proportion of the total greenhouse gas emissions. 
    Constantly trying to belittle someone who has been proven to have been so correct about so much, whilst you have been proven to have been spectacularly wrong, is really not a good look.

    But you carry on digging, and don't try pretending that Billionaires are personally responsible for 23% of Global emissions as you did earlier in the thread before you got caught out.
  • And the "per capita" relates to?

    Stop making a fool of yourself and just admit you're wrong for once.
    Per capita means per person. In the context of emissions, the "top 1% per capita" means the 1% of the population who emit the most. In terms of wealth it means the 1% of people who have the most money. 
  • Nah it’s a joke. Get off your incredibly high horse.
    It's a joke you've made in pretty much the same way at least 8 times in the last 3 days from a very quick scan. It's always at the same couple of people when they are making a genuine point.

    Rather than me being on a high horse. The condescending nature of your repetitive "joke" shows the opposit to be true. 
  • Lol okay. You're yet to contribute anything to this thread other than digs at people that are trying things. You take people discussing options as people telling others what to do even though that has never happened on this thread. You don't have to agree with the things people are trying or you may not think it makes a difference but you could try not to be a colossal twat about it.

    We get it you pretend to play devil's advocate to try and hide what are actually quite far right views and also avoid committing to an opinion. It's not constructive and it adds fuck all. 

    Maybe I am sanctimonious to be honest I don't give a fuck what you think. I'm passionate and have a basic level of empathy to care about others. People that hold opinions like yours have fucked the economy, society and the planet for my generation. Sorry for being upset that I basically have no prospect of a future. 
    Bingo.
  • Chill out young man.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited January 22
    And yes before anyone says it I know he's getting his sad little rise out of getting me trigged. I know I shouldn't play his sad little game or let him deliberately take threads away from constructive conversation about the actual topic because he doesn't like said topic. 

    But guess what, I actually care about positive things rather than having entire personality being about things you don't like. I'm passionate about trying to make the world better so these sad games do get to me eventually.
    I’m not looking for a sad little rise, but interesting seeing what level you can achieve.


  • swordfish said:
    Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that  I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.

    https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/planet/climate-change-will-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/#:~:text=Climate change is altering geological,particular eruption to climate change.

    So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!

    At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.

  • edited January 22

    So volcanic eruptions were 30-50 times higher 10,000 years ago when emissions from human activity would have been miniscule compared to today. That's very interesting!

    At least we can expect fewer tsunami's forming as a consequence of rising sea levels, so a benefit there.

    Can we? Elsewhere, in other research, I read the opposite, that the risk of tsunamis forming was greatly increased by rising sea levels, but as I was bamboozled by all the research data and terminology accompanying it, so I'm only quoting from an abstract here.

    "Rising sea levels will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on coastal communities globally. With previous research focused on how sea-level rise (SLR) affects storm-induced flooding, we show that SLR will also increase both the frequency and the intensity of tsunami-induced flooding, another significant coastal hazard associated with sea-level extremes. We developed probabilistic tsunami inundation maps for Macau, a densely populated coastal city located in the South China Sea, under current sea-level, 0.5-m SLR, and 1-m SLR conditions, using an extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation. Our results indicate that conservative amounts of SLR of 0.5 m (by 2060) and 1 m (by 2100) would dramatically increase the frequency of tsunami-induced flooding incidences by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4 and 1.5 to 4.7, respectively."

    Edit - Actually this looks an easier read 5 ways climate change increases the threat of tsunamis, from collapsing ice shelves to sea level rise
  • swordfish said:
    Based on watching Chris Packham's excellent documentary chronicling the earth's long history, I was curious to know if / what volcanic activity could actually be attributed to climate change given that  I already knew eruptions have massively contributed to it before. This is what I found for anyone interested. Our actions may indirectly cause an increase in activity, but that's not beyond doubt and they obviously didn't in the past.

    https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/planet/climate-change-will-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/#:~:text=Climate change is altering geological,particular eruption to climate change.
    Absolutely fascinating programme that. For me, especially the bit about the 50m year ice age being broken by C02 from volcanoes. That and the massive fungi that no longer exist, because plants developed systems enabling them to grow big enough that meant fungi were left in the shade. Link here for anyone that might have missed this phenomenal piece of television.
  • swordfish said:
    Can we? Elsewhere, in other research, I read the opposite, that the risk of tsunamis forming was greatly increased by rising sea levels, but as I was bamboozled by all the research data and terminology accompanying it, so I'm only quoting from an abstract here.

    "Rising sea levels will have overwhelmingly negative impacts on coastal communities globally. With previous research focused on how sea-level rise (SLR) affects storm-induced flooding, we show that SLR will also increase both the frequency and the intensity of tsunami-induced flooding, another significant coastal hazard associated with sea-level extremes. We developed probabilistic tsunami inundation maps for Macau, a densely populated coastal city located in the South China Sea, under current sea-level, 0.5-m SLR, and 1-m SLR conditions, using an extensive Monte Carlo tsunami inundation simulation. Our results indicate that conservative amounts of SLR of 0.5 m (by 2060) and 1 m (by 2100) would dramatically increase the frequency of tsunami-induced flooding incidences by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4 and 1.5 to 4.7, respectively."

    Edit - Actually this looks an easier read 5 ways climate change increases the threat of tsunamis, from collapsing ice shelves to sea level rise
    That's what I took from this part:

    And what about magma production at depth?

    VP. The melting of glaciers over large areas increases magma production at depth. Conversely, for submarine volcanoes, rising sea levels linked to human-induced climate change are increasing pressure on magma chambers. This could reduce magma production.

    Less submarine magma production should equate to less submarine eruptions, shouldn't it?
  • edited January 22
    That's what I took from this part:

    And what about magma production at depth?

    VP. The melting of glaciers over large areas increases magma production at depth. Conversely, for submarine volcanoes, rising sea levels linked to human-induced climate change are increasing pressure on magma chambers. This could reduce magma production.

    Less submarine magma production should equate to less submarine eruptions, shouldn't it?
    I wouldn't feel confident answering that as I don't have the expertise, but intuitively you'd think so. Seems not though due to how the other forces of nature interact, as explained in the link.
  • swordfish said:
    I wouldn't feel confident answering that as I don't have the expertise, but intuitively you'd think so. Seems not though due to how the other forces of nature interact, as explained in the link.
    Indeed. And with so many different forces and events interacting, it's probably impossible to know for sure.
    Hopefully that's where AI may be able to provide answers in the not too distant future.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Snowy Florida on the news just now. 
  • image

    As the deniers would say:

    Nothing To See Here GIFs - Find  Share on GIPHY

  • edited January 23
    Great post Jessie... Queenies been educating those that won't listen for years here. 
  • Great post Jessie... Queeries been educating those that won't listen for years here. 
    Actually I've seen many films about homosexual people and always sympathised with them. I'm all for the legalisation of same-sex marriage. I think it's a necessary change. But anything other than that, I'm not sure... Last year I read that Biden signed an executive order that provided free transgender surgery to military members and many transgender people joined the military just for free surgeries (I think that's the natural outcome of this policy). While thousands and thousands of services members are denied of PTSD and TBI treatments because the US government or the military organisations don't have adequate financial resources and yet they have money for transgender surgeries? WTF is that? I really think it's a sign that the LGBT issue becoming ridiculous. If I go to a lady's room and there's a trans who used to be a man, I'd feel very very uncomfortable or even scared. What the left is doing is encouraging, not supporting but encouraging abnormalities and encouraging people to "use" the policies for their own purposes.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!