Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

Another post on resilience, despite the threat.

Good news, is good news

Quote

Two-thirds of Australia's Great Barrier Reef showed the largest amount of coral cover in 36 years, but the reef remains vulnerable 

Parts of Australia's Great Barrier Reef show highest coral cover in 36 years | Reuters

E6ID4WZB5JPNVJNVDLWCDXHD2Q.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This one's about sustainability.  The 'go meatless to save the planet' thing pops up occasionally... And it turns out not to be the panacea it's made out to be. 

It's actually a very balanced and good read 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/08/meat-veganism-climate-change-agriculture-environment/671200/

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Clearly, we need syntho-steaks. No skin, bones, sinews, guts - just slabs of clean muscle tissue and fat growing in vast, underground vats.

So... Robo-cattle on the plains to keep up the soil health? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

This one's about sustainability.  The 'go meatless to save the planet' thing pops up occasionally... And it turns out not to be the panacea it's made out to be. 

It's actually a very balanced and good read 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/08/meat-veganism-climate-change-agriculture-environment/671200/

Except that to reach those conclusion it seems they didn't stop at "go meatless", but had to remove dairy and eggs.  Why kill the chicken that gives nearly 100% protein eggs?  Why eliminate dairy?  I'll admit that huge chunks of the world population* can't enjoy [much] dairy after infancy, but it is an extremely useful food supply that is continually produced by the cow, instead of a one shot harvest (cue vegans pointing out that you typically wind up with more calves than you want milchcows.  But that really isn't an environmental issue, and could easily contribute to low level meat production).

* Is cheese really that prevalent in authentic Mexican cuisine?  I don't think purely Spanish genes would be enough to spread lactose tolerance across the nation like that.  Or is that level of cheese merely for gringos (and possibly rich Mexicans, also likely to be more Spanish than typical)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In warm climate it's hard to keep milk fresh, it anyway turns sore.
But on the other hand the cheese has time to mature.
The same about grapes and wine.
So, the Southern people make a lot of cheese and wine but feel bad after fresh milk.

In cold climate the cheese has no time to mature before it gets frozen, but the fresh milk doesn't get sur immediately, and hungry peasant don't want to wait, and drink the milk without cheesing.
Also they boil the sour milk and make quark.
Thus, they eat quark and drink milk rather than making cheese.
The same with wine. It doesn't have time to mature, and the grapes have low sugar because of poor insolation, so they prefer quick-made drinks like beer and moonshine.

Thus, while the Southerners are hitting their kidneys, the Northerners are attacking their heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

This one's about sustainability.  The 'go meatless to save the planet' thing pops up occasionally... And it turns out not to be the panacea it's made out to be. 

It's actually a very balanced and good read 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/08/meat-veganism-climate-change-agriculture-environment/671200/

Thanks, this was a good read!

It has very interesting info but it does feel like the average “all we need to do is use green energy and we can stop climate change” articles. That’s a lot harder to do than it sounds like.

I wish them good luck convincing ranchers to aid in “cutting back on emissions”- in other words, giving up their livelihoods- when a large percentage of them don’t even believe climate change exists. Source- my mother’s side of the family all either are ranchers, were ranchers, or live in ranching regions. They have quite interesting things to say (and post on Facebook :rolleyes:) about climate change… among other things.

I tried to find a proper outside source too but the data mainly pertains to farmers. Interestingly, many farmers accept the existence of climate change, but do not believe humans are necessarily causing it. While the acceptance and response to it is growing among farmers, I wasn’t able to find anything about ranchers. This makes sense as farmers stand to lose the most from climate change (crop losses) and gain from a response (more resilient farming practices et al), while ranchers would simply lose all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

many farmers accept the existence of climate change, but do not believe humans are necessarily causing it.

The power of self-delusion in support of self-interest is extremely strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I tried to find a proper outside source too but the data mainly pertains to farmers.

Well, the discussion about vegan or vegetarian diet is somewhat distracting from the real problem, the influence agriculture as a whole has on climate. The GHG emissions of agriculture including animal husbandry was in 2007 estimated to be 18% worldwide (IPCC), newer estimates take it slightly higher, prediction see it rising also.

Without going into detail, but the way modern agriculture is done is not sustainable. It leads to loss of land through increased erosion and loss of diversity, and subsequently to not enough land to feed everybody. This is yet only a slight problem in North America and Europe at least, but will become if diet is not changed and land use reformed.

Some sources:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200781

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

https://www.carbonbrief.org/worlds-soils-have-lost-133bn-tonnes-of-carbon-since-the-dawn-of-agriculture/

 

Only indirectly related to sea level rise.

 

Edited by Pixophir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pixophir said:

if diet is not changed

I'm afraid, 7/8 of humanity already (still?) has that ecologically optimised diet, and the other 1/8 sacrifice wouldn't make things significantly better.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm afraid, 7/8 of humanity already (still?) has that ecologically optimised diet, and the other 1/8 sacrifice wouldn't make things significantly better.

Source, pls.

There is no such thing as a general optimised diet, and by far not ecological. Diet depends on many things, from age over level of activity and what can be grown and what is available at all. The news of famine in growing areas of the world, shortage of potable water on the one side and overfed people on the other side is everywhere. None of them has 'ecologically optimized diet'.

This not anything new, mind you, it is just showing after 20 years of unheard warnings.

Edited by Pixophir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Source of what?

Less developed countries are full of vegans. Not that volunteered, but the meat costs too much.

Source pls., that 7/8th of humanity has 'ecologically optimized diet'.

Just to give it a sciency touch, and because that's a rather cynical view.

Edited by Pixophir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Pixophir said:

Source pls., that 7/8th of humanity has 'ecologically optimized diet'.

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/consumption/foods-and-beverages/world-consumption-of-meat

Quote

Globally, we consume around 350 million tons of meat a year

Quote

If everyone shared the meat-heavy diet of the average american, the world could feed just 2.5 billion people

So, the majority of humans are vegans. They just can't buy meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 6:23 AM, Scotius said:

Clearly, we need syntho-steaks. No skin, bones, sinews, guts - just slabs of clean muscle tissue and fat growing in vast, underground vats.

only if they can synthesize the taste of its fear. 

frankly im not a fan of meat substitutes. but an engineered genetic anomaly that is still technically meat might be viable if it grills nice and you can eat it rare. 

honestly as much as i like a good steak, if i had to give up one of the big 3 (the others being chicken and pork), beef would be the first on the chopping block. chicken is really versatile culinary wise and pork is a key ingredient in bacon.

Edited by Nuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current ice loss (as projected from the trend 2000-2019) of the Greenland ice shield leads to almost 30cm of sea level rise (SLR), an equivalent of ~3.3% of mace loss of the Greenland ice sheet. Should the trend as shown in the extraordinary large loss of ice in 2012 continue, that would contribute almost 80cm of SLR, making 30cm the lower boundary.

Source (open access):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01441-2

Pop science:

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-greenland-major-sea.html

Quote

While the researchers were not able to give an exact timeframe, they said most of it could happen by 2100—meaning that current modeled projections of sea level rise could be understating the risks this century.

The "shocking" results are also a lowest estimate because they do not take future warming into account, said lead author Jason Box, of the National Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

"It's a conservative lower bound. The climate has only to continue warming around Greenland for more commitment," he told AFP.

 

Edited by Pixophir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is going to happen.

Just like mountaineers are learning to deal with the fact that there are classic glacier routes that just don't exist anymore, and won't exist again for the rest of their lifetimes, I am willing to say that pretty much every existing beach in the world is going to be underwater by the time kids today are in retirement homes. Will there be new beaches? Probably, but they won't be the same beaches.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they at 3 cm above water?

They should build a half-meter sand wall to protect it, and turn into a "paddling pool" (aka "лягушатник" / "frog place").

Why not, the Dutch have made whole provinces this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...