More evidence that rising sea levels are a conspiracy theory (1 Viewer)

[MiTasol]

Here is an example of where what is being done is 99% wrong.

Tree by tree, this new suburb is dodging baking heat in summer

Thousands of young trees dot the streets and front gardens of this outer Melbourne suburb as part of a neighbourhood-wide push to create more shade and curb the urban heat island effect.

www.abc.net.au

The tree canopy is a great idea that I 100% support but that photo clearly shows that the biggest cause of heat islands is being totally ignored.

Black roofs provide the absolute maximum conversion of sunlight to heat. White roofs minimise that heat conversion. Metal roofs are somewhere in the middle but provide far better insulation.

Concrete paths are good but blacktop roads again maximise the conversion of sunlight to heat.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Here is an example of where what is being done is 99% wrong.

Tree by tree, this new suburb is dodging baking heat in summer

Thousands of young trees dot the streets and front gardens of this outer Melbourne suburb as part of a neighbourhood-wide push to create more shade and curb the urban heat island effect.

www.abc.net.au

The tree canopy is a great idea that I 100% support but that photo clearly shows that the biggest cause of heat islands is being totally ignored.

Black roofs provide the absolute maximum conversion of sunlight to heat. White roofs minimise that heat conversion. Metal roofs are somewhere in the middle but provide far better insulation.

They are starting to paint the streets white in some places, for example in Los Angeles.

 

[MiTasol]

Excellent but this article is about a new suburb that cannot get even the most basic heat reduction right and then brags about the minor stuff.

 

[Marcel]

I'm not sure of your sources. Well, this is the official graph of the UN.

And the estimated birth/death rate worldwide Interesting, the peak during the corona pandemic.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I'm not sure of your sources. Well, this is the official graph of the UN. View attachment 863058
And the estimated birth/death rate worldwide Interesting, the peak during the corona pandemic.
View attachment 863059

The difference is simple, the population growth continues in places like India and Nigeria, but not in say, France, the US, Canada, China or Japan. So the effects of dealing with population will be different in different regions. As will the effects of changing weather.

 

[Marcel]

The difference is simple, the population growth continues in places like India and Nigeria, but not in say, France, the US, Canada, China or Japan. So the effects of dealing with population will be different in different regions. As will the effects of changing weather.

of course, rich countries have a significant lower birth rate. The effects of changing weather will have indeed both a global and a local effect. If your coast is a 25m cliff, you're less worried about a rising sealevel then we, who live a couple of meters below sealevel and have our self made dykes to protect us. That does not have much to do with the difference in population growth in the different areas, that's just physics and landscape.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree with you but the current situation is much stranger and more dire - there are clearly environmental and physiological factors at work, and more than one. It seems we have poisoned ourselves. The 22nd Century is going to be about finding a way to restore human fertility.

Dude, we're plenty fertile. But since you mentioned them, what physiological changes are occurring to the human phenotype that we should be worried about? Reference credible scientific sources, preferably peer-reviewed, if you would, please.

There are of course many environmental issues that can, do, and are currently affecting human biology. But they pale in comparison to the environmental disaster we're inflicting upon ourselves, because while those environmental issues are usually localized or slow-acting, AGW is global, rushing in upon us, and has more than a few feedback loops built into it.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

of course, rich countries have a significant lower birth rate. The effects of changing weather will have indeed both a global and a local effect. If your coast is a 25m cliff, you're less worried about a rising sealevel then we, who live a couple of meters below sealevel and have our self made dykes to protect us. That does not have much to do with the difference in population growth in the different areas, that's just physics and landscape.

I really don't know what your point is here, but declining fertility is not just due to affluence, unfortunately

What is driving the global decline of human fertility? Need for a multidisciplinary approach to the underlying mechanisms - PMC

An intense period of human population expansion over the past 250 years is about to cease. Total fertility rates are falling dramatically all over the world such that highly industrialized nations, including China and the tiger economies of SE Asia, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Dude, we're plenty fertile. But since you mentioned them, what physiological changes are occurring to the human phenotype that we should be worried about? Reference credible scientific sources, preferably peer-reviewed, if you would, please.

There are of course many environmental issues that can, do, and are currently affecting human biology. But they pale in comparison to the environmental disaster we're inflicting upon ourselves, because while those environmental issues are usually localized or slow-acting, AGW is global, rushing in upon us, and has more than a few feedback loops built into it.

I don't know whether it "pales in comparison" or not, but it does also seem to be happening and has many environmental causes, apparently. This has been widely known for several years now.

One is endocrine disruptors

Endocrine disrupting chemicals and male fertility: from physiological to molecular effects - PMC

The deleterious effects of chemical or non-chemical endocrine disruptors (EDs) on male fertility potential is well documented but still not fully elucidated. For example, the detection of industrial chemicals’ metabolites in seminal plasma and ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Various other environmental factors

Environmental factors in declining human fertility - Nature Reviews Endocrinology

This article discusses trends in human reproductive behaviour and health that are associated with infertility. These changes have occurred over a period of only a couple of generations, so environmental factors are suggested to have a role.

www.nature.com

Environmental Toxins and Infertility - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Marcel]

I really don't know what your point is here, but declining fertility is not just due to affluence, unfortunately

What is driving the global decline of human fertility? Need for a multidisciplinary approach to the underlying mechanisms - PMC

An intense period of human population expansion over the past 250 years is about to cease. Total fertility rates are falling dramatically all over the world such that highly industrialized nations, including China and the tiger economies of SE Asia, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Of course not, but I can you show me how much medical infertility contributes to lower birth rate as compared to social and economic factors? I've yet to see numbers on that and what I've read indicates that the latter has a huge impact on it.

 

[ThomasP]

Some data on Europe and the US showing correlation (though not necessarily causation) between Infant & Childhood death rates vs Life Expectancy over the last 220 years or so. Note the fairly level rates since the late-1950s and early-1960s when the vaccination programs began to be implemented.

First, the US and European Infant Mortality rates from 1800 to today:

Next, the US Infant and Childhood Mortality rates from 1900 to now.

NOTE the varying Death Rates age groups. I do not have the equivalent numbers for the European nations but I have reason to believe they would be similar.

Next the Overall (all ages) Mortality Rates vs Life Expectancy for the US from 1900 to now.

Again, aside from during the 2 World Wars, their is a similar trend for the same European nations.

US Fertility Rate since 1800.

The US Fertility Rate since 1950.

NOTE that the 'Baby Boom' of the 1950s occurred in Europe also, though to a smaller degree than in the US.

 

[Lucky13]

Sorry - wrong thread

Sorry - wrong thread - again.

Due to climate change?

 

[frankv]

You would have to be a highly knowledgeable climate scientist to deny climate change or even anthropogenic climate change. You would be making assertions contrary to the knowledge of thousands of climate scientists, with equally thousands of peer-reviewed papers showing how they have come to this conclusion.

Whether climate change is cyclical or man-made, we are equally "doomed" (Climate scientists don't say we're doomed, btw... see my last paragraph). Even if we accept the cyclical hypothesis, it doesn't tell us anything about doom or not, because modern man has really only lived on the planet for less than one of the shorter cycles.

The key fact that needs to be understood is that during the last 10,000 years we have created our industry and commerce and cities and agriculture for the existing climate. We have strenuously optimised for that current climate. So, any change in climate will result in a sub-optimal system, which we will have to live with or expend energy and money in changing to the new climate.

What climate scientists are saying is that it will be easier and cheaper to modify what we do now than to live with or adapt to climate change in the future. Not "doom".

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I don't think it's really an either / or. The climate has already changed. Storms, forest fires, floods are already worse. So we already need to adapt to that. And this is going to increase even if we cut carbon emissions and Greenhouse gasses by 50% today. Which isn't going to happen no matter what people decide in a conversation like this.

Meanwhile changing carbon emissions is a struggle. Nations are still going to war over oil. And I think people even in strong countries fear a kind of green austerity being imposed on them as I said. Given the state of most nations in the world, the number of citizens who trust the government at the national level is pretty low, IMO. That is the real problem when it comes to demanding things like that everyone quit driving, stop eating meat, adjust their climate control systems to uncomfortable or even health imperiling levels, stop flying... especially when they see the ruling strata flying around in private jets, shooting people in rockets up to orbit for fun, sailing around in giant Caligula yachts etc. Even showing up for Climate change conferences in those same Gulfstream G4s.

Making changes at the local level which can have positive impacts can teach a local electorate that their decisions (and some degree of sacrifice, in some cases) can make concrete improvements. I've seen it happen where I live. We had a large body of water that seemed hopelessly polluted. But pragmatic steps were taken, and now it's been improved dramatically. Today sea mammals have returned, the fishing has improved. The beaches are viable. Everyone can see the benefits. People in many coastal areas now widely understand that coastal forests, barrier islands and wetlands are directly tied to their safety from storms. Some cities have cut down on water use dramatically due to droughts, and found that they could do so without necessarily curtailing quality of life. Improved forest management skills are starting to be implemented to help moderate the effects of forest fires.

I think we better start relearning how to make changes that effect our environment in a positive way.

 

[MiTasol]

Some cities have cut down on water use dramatically due to droughts, and found that they could do so without necessarily curtailing quality of life.

But some cities that make such intelligent changes renege on them.

Melbourne in Australia removed the ban on rainwater tanks and even subsidised people installing them. Once the drought was over the water utility, which the city had sold to private investors long before the drought, said it would sue the city to recover the lost revenue unless the tanks were banned and removed. The city caved without a murmur.

 

[frankv]

That is the real problem when it comes to demanding things like that everyone quit driving, stop eating meat, adjust their climate control systems to uncomfortable or even health imperiling levels, stop flying... especially when they see the ruling strata flying around in private jets, shooting people in rockets up to orbit for fun, sailing around in giant Caligula yachts etc. Even showing up for Climate change conferences in those same Gulfstream G4s.

Part of the problem is the catastrophisation that is projected by CC deniers aa a strawman. No-one is demanding that people quit driving, stop eating meat, etc. What they are saying is that those things have consequences. If you're in rural America you can't live without a car, so drive. If you live in a city with good public transport, use it. Likewise if you have a G4. Wasteful consumption should be avoided.

 

[Dana Bell]

A few month back I found myself driving behind a Pepsi delivery truck A large sign on the truck bragged, "Pepsi! Doing our part to reduce carbon emissions!" It made me winder just what Pepsi thought all those canned bubbles were made of....

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Steamed_Banana]

But some cities that make such intelligent changes renege on them.

Melbourne in Australia removed the ban on rainwater tanks and even subsidised people installing them. Once the drought was over the water utility, which the city had sold to private investors long before the drought, said it would sue the city to recover the lost revenue unless the tanks were banned and removed. The city caved without a murmur.

Well that sounds like corruption and malfeasance which is a major problem they need to solve. I don't see how that has bearing on national climate policy?

 

[Lucky13]

Part of the problem is the catastrophisation that is projected by CC deniers aa a strawman. No-one is demanding that people quit driving, stop eating meat, etc. What they are saying is that those things have consequences. If you're in rural America you can't live without a car, so drive. If you live in a city with good public transport, use it. Likewise if you have a G4. Wasteful consumption should be avoided.

Well, I'd rather....

 

[MiTasol]

Well that sounds like corruption and malfeasance which is a major problem they need to solve. I don't see how that has bearing on national climate policy?

It was more likely that it was less corruption than advice from their legal team that the water company would win the case and get considerable compensation or that even if they won the case the cost would be unacceptable to the voting public. Given Aus has compulsory voting they know that voter apathy is far less here than in countries like the US where the voting is sporadic at best.

It affects national climate policy in that many councils sold their water supply, and other assets, to get a small cash injection. Most of the sold assets were actually profitable which is why they sold so easily. This same situation will apply to many other councils and will prevent them from allowing and/or encouraging rainwater tanks.

Worse still, again in Melbourne, they sold the public transport rail network to "investors" who owned it a relatively short time, doing little or no maintenance etc, and when it became unreliable and lost considerable customers selling the remains back to the government for $1.00. The bill to return it to reliability was way in excess of the original sale price and the whole process not only ripped off the city rate (tax) payers but drove a large percentage of former patrons back to their cars for an extended period.