New Zealand Government to declare a climate emergency

Forums › Off topic › New Zealand Government to declare a climate emergency

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2619283 10-Dec-2020 11:16

Rikkitic:

frankv:

Whilst I agree that it is likely to be dire, I'm not so sure about the rest of your assertions.

I agree with your points but what about the enormous economic and migratory disruptions that will result from all this? Collapse of the financial system alone could result in mass starvation and bloodshed in the streets.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2619288 10-Dec-2020 11:26

frankv:

Whilst I agree that it is likely to be dire, I'm not so sure about the rest of your assertions.

Far less arable land? Maybe. The land near sea level will be flooded (or protected). Land near the equator will get warmer, so more prone to becoming deserts, but also land nearer the poles will become farmable. But that's a generalisation. For example, the Sahel (sub-Saharan Africa) is becoming *greener* as a consequence of GW, so in that region there is far more arable land due to changing rainfall patterns. Incidentally, farming practices in the Sahel are extraordinarily inefficient... huge production increases are possible.

There is no shortage of liveable locations. The limitation is simply transportation of food and other supplies. Every location on Earth is vastly better than the best location on Mars. If we can consider terraforming land on a -65C planet with no breathable atmosphere, we can terraform a bit of Earth desert (e.g. Las Vegas).

I think there will be *more* fresh water. A warmer atmosphere can carry more water, and there will be increased evaporation from the sea at warmer temperatures, so likely more rainfall and less difficulty with fresh water. But also more hurricanes and typhoons.

Likewise hydro. More rainfall, so overall more hydroelectric power available. Of course, less rain may fall in the catchments where hydro is currently present.

In places that are already warm, more power will be used for cooling. But in places that are too cool, less power will be needed for heating. Overall a drift of populations away from too-warm places towards currently-too-cool places will occur.

From what Ive read and a doco on it, the equatorial region will become inhabitable. There is a a huge population in that region. Cannot live there or grow there. Arable land will change, you just need to shift crops, but the land area is reduced in the Equatorial region, so the people need to relocate, as does the crops/livestock. Right now globally, fresh water is a problem. Lake Mead and the wider US aquifers are drying up. And the effect of global warming right now is not high, yet we are still running out of fresh water. Rain doesnt rain when we turn on the tap, and in a warmer environment it will rain less in some places more in others and not when it used to rain. We will need to run desalination plants.

If it was as easy as just growing grapes now instead of stonefruit, pop the house on stilts or move inland by 50km and grab a couple more heatpumps, that would be great.

If we can consider terraforming land on a -65C planet with no breathable atmosphere, we can terraform a bit of Earth desert (e.g. Las Vegas).

Terraforming on Mars is ridiculous. It would be easier to reduce emissions, sequester carbon and roll back the distortion we have created. If your tropical fish tank is getting too warm, water is losing oxygen and becoming toxic, fish are dying and adding to the toxic water, plants are dying, what do you do? POut a smaller tank inside the tank? No, you restore the ecosystem to one that's self managing

I get your points though, I just dont see it as just requiring a little but of adaption, and moving house, based on the science I have read. Maybe its just being hysterical...

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2619294 10-Dec-2020 11:34

tdgeek:

If we can consider terraforming land on a -65C planet with no breathable atmosphere, we can terraform a bit of Earth desert (e.g. Las Vegas).

Terraforming on Mars is ridiculous. It would be easier to reduce emissions, sequester carbon and roll back the distortion we have created. If your tropical fish tank is getting too warm, water is losing oxygen and becoming toxic, fish are dying and adding to the toxic water, plants are dying, what do you do? POut a smaller tank inside the tank? No, you restore the ecosystem to one that's self managing

I get your points though, I just dont see it as just requiring a little but of adaption, and moving house, based on the science I have read. Maybe its just being hysterical...

I hope Mars does get terraformed one day. That would be very cool. It would also fit well with the human history of spreading into new territories and making them liveable. Living on other planets is a magnificent dream and should be part of our ultimate destiny. But it should result from healing the earth, not from fleeing a devastated planet. Fix things here, then apply that knowledge elsewhere.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2619296 10-Dec-2020 11:39

Rikkitic:

I hope Mars does get terraformed one day. That would be very cool. It would also fit well with the human history of spreading into new territories and making them liveable. Living on other planets is a magnificent dream and should be part of our ultimate destiny. But it should result from healing the earth, not from fleeing a devastated planet. Fix things here, then apply that knowledge elsewhere.

Mars cannot be terraformed now and if it is at all possible it want be in a time frame that would save our butts. It simply is not an option.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2619298 10-Dec-2020 11:41

Rikkitic:

I hope Mars does get terraformed one day. That would be very cool. It would also fit well with the human history of spreading into new territories and making them liveable. Living on other planets is a magnificent dream and should be part of our ultimate destiny. But it should result from healing the earth, not from fleeing a devastated planet. Fix things here, then apply that knowledge elsewhere.

Couldn't agree more. We don't have the technology or the money to terraform Mars, but we will one day, assuming we fix or adapt to climate change. Personally I feel it would be easier to live on spacecraft in the shorter term.

rhy7s

623 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2619302 10-Dec-2020 11:46

frankv:

tripper1000:

fertiliser produced from oil.

Fertiliser is not produced from oil. Typically it is made from methane (natural gas) and nitrogen (from the air).

I presume tripper1000 was using oil as a shorthand for non-renewable hydrocarbons.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2619305 10-Dec-2020 11:57

rhy7s:

I presume tripper1000 was using oil as a shorthand for non-renewable hydrocarbons.

So are there renewables that can provide a manufacturing basis for acceptable fertilisers?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2619350 10-Dec-2020 12:05

Rikkitic:

So are there renewables that can provide a manufacturing basis for acceptable fertilisers?

The way forward for sustenance is not by agriculture and by artificial production of sustainable alternatives. Agriculture as we know now is not sustainable and will need to be replaced.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2619354 10-Dec-2020 12:10

tdgeek:

Couldn't agree more. We don't have the technology or the money to terraform Mars, but we will one day, assuming we fix or adapt to climate change. Personally I feel it would be easier to live on spacecraft in the shorter term.

I wasn't suggesting terraforming should be considered as a realistic option to changing our ways, just that it should not be entirely ruled out as an added possibility in the distant future. Even without it, life on Mars or the moon is likely to be vastly preferable to life in a spaceship. There are underground caverns and lava tubes that can 'easily' be modified as living spaces and pressurised with inflatable modules. This gives protection from radiation and micro-meteorites. It also gives gravity, which is important for health. Both planets have water for drinking and oxygen. Abundant power for growing lights can be obtained from the surface, either solar or even nuclear. This is all within the reach of near-future technology and can provide the basis for viable colonies. It is NOT an alternative to living on earth or a reason not to do everything in our power to stop the current degradation.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2619355 10-Dec-2020 12:12

Rikkitic:

rhy7s:

I presume tripper1000 was using oil as a shorthand for non-renewable hydrocarbons.

So are there renewables that can provide a manufacturing basis for acceptable fertilisers?

Methane can be manufactured by hydrogenating CO2 or CO, but currently it is much cheaper to get it from natural gas. So, yes, fertilisers can be produced from renewables.

At current consumption rates, there are 40 or 52 or 92 years of natural gas reserves worldwide (oil is similar, 47 or 53 or 70 years), depending what point is trying to be made.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2619359 10-Dec-2020 12:17

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

Couldn't agree more. We don't have the technology or the money to terraform Mars, but we will one day, assuming we fix or adapt to climate change. Personally I feel it would be easier to live on spacecraft in the shorter term.

I wasn't suggesting terraforming should be considered as a realistic option to changing our ways, just that it should not be entirely ruled out as an added possibility in the distant future. Even without it, life on Mars or the moon is likely to be vastly preferable to life in a spaceship. There are underground caverns and lava tubes that can 'easily' be modified as living spaces and pressurised with inflatable modules. This gives protection from radiation and micro-meteorites. It also gives gravity, which is important for health. Both planets have water for drinking and oxygen. Abundant power for growing lights can be obtained from the surface, either solar or even nuclear. This is all within the reach of near-future technology and can provide the basis for viable colonies. It is NOT an alternative to living on earth or a reason not to do everything in our power to stop the current degradation.

Yes, I was actually agreeing with you, we will one day. Be able to terraform.

If we could transport tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of equipment to Mars or the Moon, then that would become viable a lot sooner. But we need a Saturn V rocket just for a tiny payload we have used in the recent past. The rocket is almost all fuel, which is kind of ironic

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2619360 10-Dec-2020 12:20

Rikkitic:

rhy7s: I presume tripper1000 was using oil as a shorthand for non-renewable hydrocarbons.

So are there renewables that can provide a manufacturing basis for acceptable fertilisers?

Yes of course. I think it was in the early days.

The Wikipedia page on fertiliser is worth a read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

Methane is CH4 but it is only the H you need for fertiliser. Now you get into the same problem as H - hydrogen powered cars - they're not as green as they want you to think because the H for those also comes from hydrocarbons!!! You can get H from H2O water, but it is a lot cheaper to steam in out of hydrocarbons.

So you can see the same peak oil that is going to affect transport, is also going a affect food (and plastics and a whole bunch of other chemicals precursors).

Even if climate change is wrong, its associated desire to conserve fossil fuels is extremely good so harness the motivation and roll with it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2619363 10-Dec-2020 12:35

tdgeek:

Yes, I was actually agreeing with you, we will one day. Be able to terraform.

If we could transport tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of equipment to Mars or the Moon, then that would become viable a lot sooner. But we need a Saturn V rocket just for a tiny payload we have used in the recent past. The rocket is almost all fuel, which is kind of ironic

Even that is improving. Today's rockets are better than the Saturn V and we only need to haul enough to the moon to start manufacturing processes there. Magnetic launchers can throw stuff into orbit (cargo, not humans) and there are lots of other possibilities. We bootstrapped ourselves on earth from the the first campfires and we can do the same in space.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2619371 10-Dec-2020 12:43

Rikkitic:

Even that is improving. Today's rockets are better than the Saturn V and we only need to haul enough to the moon to start manufacturing processes there. Magnetic launchers can throw stuff into orbit (cargo, not humans) and there are lots of other possibilities. We bootstrapped ourselves on earth from the the first campfires and we can do the same in space.

If colonising the Moon or Mars was at all possible the race to own them would be on now.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2619374 10-Dec-2020 12:55

Rikkitic:

It would also fit well with the human history of spreading into new territories and making them liveable.

Uh, what!? We have had 14 pages of talking about how everything humans touch makes it worse. We are parasites and we certainly do not make things more liveable in the long term. I predict if we manage to spread (god forbid) we will have ruined the galaxy with enough time.

Earth is *not* better off as a result of humans.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17