https://news.sky.com/story/we-are-unite ... e-12400336
'We are united': More than 200 health journals call for emergency action on climate change
"The greatest threat to global public health is the continued failure of world leaders to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5C and to restore nature," says the editorial backed by hundreds of journals...
an even more frightening perspective
-
Deleted User 863
Re: an even more frightening perspective
All heavy industry and travel must stop (until we can do it cleanly with no environmental impact). We won't do it though. We like things too much.
Re: an even more frightening perspective
Under global warming and rising sea levels, how much land area has the Earth lost on net since 1985?
(a) none
(b) 10,000 square miles
(c) 50,000 square miles
(d) I couldn’t care less
(a) none
(b) 10,000 square miles
(c) 50,000 square miles
(d) I couldn’t care less
Originally Imzcount (Why do politicians think “hope” is a plan ?)
“Avoid the foolish notion of hope. Hope is the surrender of authority to your fate and trusting it to the whims of the wind”.
Taylor Sheridan
“Avoid the foolish notion of hope. Hope is the surrender of authority to your fate and trusting it to the whims of the wind”.
Taylor Sheridan
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
i’m sure your answer is (d)
why only since 1985?
regardless, the correct answer is none of the above
the impact has been, and will be, different depending on where you live. if you’re a resident of St. Kitts and Nevis, you’d have seen the loss of 1/4 of your land area since 1961...Ecuador has lost ~10% of its land area, and Vietnam ~5% (https://ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-cou ... 86224.html)
in the US (per NOAA and the EPA), the loss was “only” 20 square miles, predominately along the eastern seaboard. but the kicker is that much of the lost area was wetland, which serves as a natural buffer to storm surge...so the impact is larger than the just the loss of land itself
and, what you fail to acknowledge us that most of the effects have yet to be felt or seen
why only since 1985?
regardless, the correct answer is none of the above
the impact has been, and will be, different depending on where you live. if you’re a resident of St. Kitts and Nevis, you’d have seen the loss of 1/4 of your land area since 1961...Ecuador has lost ~10% of its land area, and Vietnam ~5% (https://ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-cou ... 86224.html)
in the US (per NOAA and the EPA), the loss was “only” 20 square miles, predominately along the eastern seaboard. but the kicker is that much of the lost area was wetland, which serves as a natural buffer to storm surge...so the impact is larger than the just the loss of land itself
and, what you fail to acknowledge us that most of the effects have yet to be felt or seen
-
Deleted User 863
Re: an even more frightening perspective
Actually the correct response is (a).TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:22 pm i’m sure your answer is (d)
why only since 1985?
regardless, the correct answer is none of the above
the impact has been, and will be, different depending on where you live. if you’re a resident of St. Kitts and Nevis, you’d have seen the loss of 1/4 of your land area since 1961...Ecuador has lost ~10% of its land area, and Vietnam ~5% (https://ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-cou ... 86224.html)
in the US (per NOAA and the EPA), the loss was “only” 20 square miles, predominately along the eastern seaboard. but the kicker is that much of the lost area was wetland, which serves as a natural buffer to storm surge...so the impact is larger than the just the loss of land itself
and, what you fail to acknowledge us that most of the effects have yet to be felt or seen
You would’ve known this if you used the Deltares Aqua Monitor.
Originally Imzcount (Why do politicians think “hope” is a plan ?)
“Avoid the foolish notion of hope. Hope is the surrender of authority to your fate and trusting it to the whims of the wind”.
Taylor Sheridan
“Avoid the foolish notion of hope. Hope is the surrender of authority to your fate and trusting it to the whims of the wind”.
Taylor Sheridan
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
if that’s your source then you need to rethink your original questiondolomite wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:46 pmActually the correct response is (a).TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:22 pm i’m sure your answer is (d)
why only since 1985?
regardless, the correct answer is none of the above
the impact has been, and will be, different depending on where you live. if you’re a resident of St. Kitts and Nevis, you’d have seen the loss of 1/4 of your land area since 1961...Ecuador has lost ~10% of its land area, and Vietnam ~5% (https://ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-cou ... 86224.html)
in the US (per NOAA and the EPA), the loss was “only” 20 square miles, predominately along the eastern seaboard. but the kicker is that much of the lost area was wetland, which serves as a natural buffer to storm surge...so the impact is larger than the just the loss of land itself
and, what you fail to acknowledge us that most of the effects have yet to be felt or seen
You would’ve known this if you used the Deltares Aqua Monitor.
at best, that resource might tangentially measure loss of land due to climate change
https://deltares.nl/en/software/aqua-monitor/
and you should really do a better job at vetting you right-wing sources, since they seem to draw inappropriate conclusions for data that doesn’t say what they think it does
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
from NatGeo:
What amazing things we can do when we put our minds—and the weight of government policy—behind them.
The highly toxic pollutant lead is finally out of the petrol that fuels our cars and trucks—everywhere. The last country in the world to sell leaded gasoline, Algeria (pictured above), finally stopped doing so in August.
It’s worth taking a moment to savor this good news. In fact, calling this merely an environmental success does not capture the scale of what humanity has accomplished. Lead exposure, Ingrid Lobet wrote this month, “impacts nearly every physiological domain in the human body,” especially in children. It harms the brain, affects motor skills, damages kidneys, livers, eyesight, balance, and can spark behavioral problems. “Anything you can think of,” one scientist said, lead “can destroy it.”
And yet, just in the U.S. between 1973, when the Environmental Protection Agency called for a phaseout of the toxic component, and 1996, when it finally banned leaded gas for good, blood-lead levels in American children plummeted 70 percent. The number of kids with toxic amounts of lead in their system fell by two million a year between 1970 and 1987. Now, that trend is going global.
Think about that: A planetwide staple was poisoning children, so we stopped it—in decades. Similarly, we’ve made incredible progress around the world curbing use of the aerosols and refrigerants that deplete the ozone layer. (Both leaded gas and ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, it turns out, were brought to consumers by the same man, chemist Thomas Midgley. But that’s another story.)
It wasn’t easy. Countries adopted new regulations, which the lead industry fought. United Nations officials applied diplomacy, peer pressure, and finesse. Some, Lobet writes, got gasoline-importing countries like Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda to demand that Kenya, a refining neighbor, sell unleaded gas or they’d buy from elsewhere. Those officials also played on leaders’ egos, using maps to point out to some ministers that neighboring countries were making better progress. But it worked.
So, after a summer of seemingly insurmountable heat waves, wildfires, and hurricanes, many exacerbated by climate change; as the U.S. Congress squabbles over budget bills that could drive reductions in fossil fuel emissions; as world leaders prepare for another significant climate summit this fall in Scotland; it’s worth remembering: We can create a better world. We just have to make it a priority and work for it.
What amazing things we can do when we put our minds—and the weight of government policy—behind them.
The highly toxic pollutant lead is finally out of the petrol that fuels our cars and trucks—everywhere. The last country in the world to sell leaded gasoline, Algeria (pictured above), finally stopped doing so in August.
It’s worth taking a moment to savor this good news. In fact, calling this merely an environmental success does not capture the scale of what humanity has accomplished. Lead exposure, Ingrid Lobet wrote this month, “impacts nearly every physiological domain in the human body,” especially in children. It harms the brain, affects motor skills, damages kidneys, livers, eyesight, balance, and can spark behavioral problems. “Anything you can think of,” one scientist said, lead “can destroy it.”
And yet, just in the U.S. between 1973, when the Environmental Protection Agency called for a phaseout of the toxic component, and 1996, when it finally banned leaded gas for good, blood-lead levels in American children plummeted 70 percent. The number of kids with toxic amounts of lead in their system fell by two million a year between 1970 and 1987. Now, that trend is going global.
Think about that: A planetwide staple was poisoning children, so we stopped it—in decades. Similarly, we’ve made incredible progress around the world curbing use of the aerosols and refrigerants that deplete the ozone layer. (Both leaded gas and ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, it turns out, were brought to consumers by the same man, chemist Thomas Midgley. But that’s another story.)
It wasn’t easy. Countries adopted new regulations, which the lead industry fought. United Nations officials applied diplomacy, peer pressure, and finesse. Some, Lobet writes, got gasoline-importing countries like Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda to demand that Kenya, a refining neighbor, sell unleaded gas or they’d buy from elsewhere. Those officials also played on leaders’ egos, using maps to point out to some ministers that neighboring countries were making better progress. But it worked.
So, after a summer of seemingly insurmountable heat waves, wildfires, and hurricanes, many exacerbated by climate change; as the U.S. Congress squabbles over budget bills that could drive reductions in fossil fuel emissions; as world leaders prepare for another significant climate summit this fall in Scotland; it’s worth remembering: We can create a better world. We just have to make it a priority and work for it.
Re: an even more frightening perspective
https://abcnews.go.com/International/yo ... d=79990330
Young people experiencing 'widespread' psychological distress over government handling of looming climate crisis, researchers say
The youth feels a sense of "institutional betrayal" brought on by their leaders
Young people experiencing 'widespread' psychological distress over government handling of looming climate crisis, researchers say
The youth feels a sense of "institutional betrayal" brought on by their leaders
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
related:ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:56 pm https://abcnews.go.com/International/yo ... d=79990330
Young people experiencing 'widespread' psychological distress over government handling of looming climate crisis, researchers say
The youth feels a sense of "institutional betrayal" brought on by their leaders
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ge/620032/
Re: an even more frightening perspective
if the young people would get a job, get out of their parents basement, take on some responsibility greater than broadening their footprint on the social medias. than they wouldn't have so much time to fake distress about stupid stuff. it's called being a grownup.
they should focus on why they have such a failure to launch.
they should focus on why they have such a failure to launch.
Re: an even more frightening perspective
Or, they're smart. They know that if the hourly rate is $9/hour they can't afford to move out so they wait until the hourly wage goes up enough to where they can move out.
When highly paid professionals negotiate a higher contract we say how smart they are and that they deserve it. When someone getting an hourly wage does essentially the same thing we call them lazy.
It's called being a hypocrite.
Stop being an angry cynic.
When highly paid professionals negotiate a higher contract we say how smart they are and that they deserve it. When someone getting an hourly wage does essentially the same thing we call them lazy.
It's called being a hypocrite.
Stop being an angry cynic.
I only came to kick some ass...
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
if my twentysomething fails to launch. i launch them for them. it's called being a parent.
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
the most recent data (past few months) submitted to UN has us in a path to 2.7C (vs the 1.5 agreed upon upper limit of the Paris accord) warming by the end of the century
Biden and literally all of his contemporaries are failing miserably
gotta make that money and continue perpetual old-school economic growth
smfh
Biden and literally all of his contemporaries are failing miserably
gotta make that money and continue perpetual old-school economic growth
smfh
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
you be their friend. i'll be their parent.
-
Deleted User 89
Re: an even more frightening perspective
deal! I'll be headed out in about 2 weeks to see what I can do to help the environment.
Last edited by TDub on Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just Ledoux it
