Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 February 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 18

Practical responses to global warming

In response to the theory of global temperature warming, there is much political and societal pressure in the west to reduce pollution, reduce carbon emissions, and to be more "eco friendly." I think we can all agree these concerns have been at the forefront of the public opinion since at least the early 90's. There are, two practical concerns that being ecologically-conscious cannot allay, however. One is: that developing nations (primarily the industrially HUGE China, India, and Indonesia) contribute a large percentage of carbon emissions and pollution and do not seem to be concerned with curbing their pollution. To quote the Washington Post in this article, "They argue that the West caused the problem and that they should fix it." [1] So the question is, when is the West going to get serious about shunning these rampant polluters with some economic boycotts? Another practical question is, now that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening rapidly, when is the West going to get serious about protecting its cities and cultural landmarks from devastation caused by rising ocean levels? I highly doubt the developed nations are going to stand by and let NYC, Boston, Harvard and Yale Universities, Washington DC, Miami, and Amsterdam and much of northern Europe get wiped off the map. So it's never too early to reasearch a way to protect our cities, is it? What is being done there? Thank you. Pinkerman45 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The biggest concerted effort, internationally, to combating climate change has been the Kyoto Protocol. --Jayron32 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We have some info at climate change mitigation. While official governmental programs and policies on climate change have been scarce in the USA, there is a lot of research money being spent, e.g. by the department of energy, the National_Science_Foundation, and even NASA. These grants fund research into every aspect of climate change, from Global_climate_models to free air carbon enrichment experiments, to urban ecology, and many other areas. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The biggest obstacles to a rational response to global warming are capitalism and human nature. Let's start with capitalism. Capitalism tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a relatively small fraction of the population. Because of their wealth and power, this class tends to gain control over political institutions. It has done so relatively effectively in the United States and Japan, somewhat less so in western Europe. China is an interesting case where the political elite embraced capitalism, and it is difficult to distinguish capitalists as a class from the political elite, so in effect their capture of the state is even more complete than in the United States. The practices that are driving global warming are a source of huge profits for the capitalist class globally. They have generally opposed policies that would restrict those practices because they would threaten profits.

Let's move on to human nature. People tend not to want to make painful or frightening changes unless they are urgently necessary. The changes that are needed to stop driving global warming would not only be painful to capitalists by cutting their income from profits. They are also frightening to the general populace, since current material living standards, if we are honest with ourselves, are not consistent with sharply reducing carbon levels in the atmosphere. Economic growth (as conventional measured) certainly is not consistent with that. What would be needed, at least in the more developed countries, would be a fairly sharp reduction in material living standards. We would need smaller-scale, more local, and much more energy efficient economies. Renewable energy sources are probably capable of preventing a return to premodern living standards, but the manufacture and maintenance of renewable energy infrastructure (especially for photovoltaic energy) currently relies on fossil fuels as an input, is itself hugely energy intensive, and therefore has a low net energy yield. That infrastructure could probably be freed of its dependence on fossil fuel inputs but will never have a large net energy yield. Simply put, people would have to make do with significantly smaller energy inputs, which translates to a lower material standard of living. Some have argued plausibly that this would or could be balanced with a higher emotional or spiritual standard of living, but people like their stuff and their ability to travel. Because climate change moves slowly, it does not create the sense of urgency that would be needed to outweigh the human tendency to avoid frightening and potentially painful change. The danger of course is that people wait until climate change brings political or economic turmoil that prevents the development of the renewable energy infrastructure needed to avoid a return to premodern living standards. And then it would be too late. But anything is possible, and none of us has a crystal ball. Marco polo (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a soapboxing request for prediction and debate, see talk.μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here are some recent reports of coastal cities that are investing in seawall construction to protect them from rising sea level and storm surges, ranging from NYC to Seattle: [2], [3], [4]. The pdf from NYC.gov (bold link) is particularly good; it mentions several other defenses in addition to seawalls, and also talks about how they evaluate mitigation strategies. So, one of the main ways large cities are planning to defend themselves from effects of climate change is to update and rebuild existing seawalls, and building some new ones. There are many other negative effects of climate change, but this is one "practical response to climate change" that was asked for. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's also the degradation of the commons problem, that for each bit of pollution each polluter puts in the air, they personally have great rewards but minimal consequences. So, they would like to continue polluting while preventing everyone else from doing so. StuRat (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• With all the problems in mind, stopping or even seriously slowing global climate change probably isn't going to happen. So, the best way to spend our resources might be to adjust to the new climate, such as moving to higher ground. (Seawalls might help, for a while, but ultimately many areas will be too far below sea level to protect.) When moving to higher ground, the old shores should be returned to nature, where things like swamps and river deltas provide substantial storm surge protection, which paved areas do not. Beaches can still be used for swimming, but no permanent structures or parking lots should be built on them (people would have to walk to them).StuRat (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See "Individual and political action on climate change"

and "Business action on climate change"

and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 104#One key to solving chronic problems (May 2012)

and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 August 21#Carbon Footprint Q: Whose foot is that, then?

and User:Wavelength/About society/Holistic economics.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not a single comment above has anything to do with when the West will get serious about boycotting "rampant" third world polluters. Although linking to capitalism and Jimbo Wales' talk page are good jokes. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was answering the part that I could, about what is being done to protect cities. Please read questions more carefully before deciding they are inappropriate. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you said nothing about mitigating sea-level rises. Storm surge walls protect against storms at the current sea level. They have nothing to do with rising sea levels or people "getting serious" about them. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have said that seawalls protect against sea level rise, because the ones I linked to don't (some do, but that's a different topic). It looks like maybe you're reading carefully now! Bonus question, just for you: what aspect of climate change do the seawalls I mentioned help defend against? Hint: the answer is in one of the many links I gave. But this is far off topic, and starting to feel WP:POINTY on both of our parts, so I'll stop now. See you around! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If what Dr Guy McPherson and others are saying about the arctic ice melting (see, Clathrate gun hypothesis and Arctic methane release), which will cause more permafrost melting and hence methane being released, there is no practical solution. McPherson quit his University job and bugged out to a "mud hut" somewhere in the desert. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Countries that historically do well in the Winter Olympics

It is self-evident that to OP intended to start a debate. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So are the Olympics a priority in the USA? I see that out of a population of 315 million, and over 200 athletes in the USA delegation, the USA has only won about 15 medals so far. Compare this to the Netherlands, population of 13 million, which has captured 17 medals, or Canada also with 15 medals but a population of only 35 million, and Norway with only a population of 5 million, and even Slovenia doing well. You see the big picture. So, is the Olympics not a priority in the USA? Or is this just an off year? Pinkerman45 (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Those countries have all tended to do well in the winter games. To me it looks like the US is doing about as well as it typically would. But there should be articles here that show the medalists for each Olympiad (such as 2010 Winter Olympics medal table and 2014 Winter Olympics medal table), so that should give you a more quantitative look. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC) People in places like Canada and the Scandinavian nations are all likely to see snow every winter. Snow based sports are very accessible. Not so for the USA, and even less so for my country, Australia. I know many adults who've never seen snow. I'm sure that would be the case for the US too. If you've never seen the stuff, you're unlikely to star in those sports. That makes the 315 million population a bit irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC) There's plenty of snow in the Midwest, but there's a noticeable lack of mountains. This is why the Olympians tend to gravitate toward Colorado, where there's plenty of both, if they can afford to move. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) That is not a very intelligent comment and shows a complete lack of understanding about the United States. The vast majority of the US population lives in "snow areas". Sure, the population has been shifting to the south and southwest for fifty years or so, but the bulk of the US still lives in the Northeast, Northern Midwest/Great Lakes area, and the West Coast, which has skiing year round. What do you think the entire US is like Texas? Ignorance at its most rank. Pinkerman45 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC) No, the entire US is not like Texas, but it's not like Norway either. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Oh, I guess you are the expert on the geography and demographics of the United States now. Pardon me that I just grew up here. I guess you Australians are the experts on the USA. What makes you think that many or most Americans don't see snow in the winter? Even if only half did, assuming for argument, that still means 157 million people (three times the population of Canada). Norway has 5 millions, and Slovenia 2.2 millions. Pinkerman45 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I could repeat a point I've already made about population, and discuss my knowledge of the US, but I see no point. You just seem to want a fight. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [e/c] Many nations have certain sports associated with a national identity. The US has baseball, football and basketball; but not-so-much of a "national pass-time" associated with winter sports (not counting regional sports). Scandinavian countries (etc.) have a national tradition for winter sports, which permeates culture and media. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[Added linebreaks, due to e/c 02:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)] To HiLo: That's because you know you are wrong. You seem to think out of a population of 315 million, only a a fraction of those people grow up doing winter sports. Just because you live in some godforsaken outback desert doesn't mean everyone else in the English-speaking world does. You've been watching too much "Magnum, P.I.". Wise up enough to know that you have no knowledge of the USA. Based on your userpage, it seem as if you have some prejudices against the USA as well. I guess you think the entire country is a bunch of Texas gun toting George W. types... Idiot.Pinkerman45 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Landscape Gardening and Lava

My uncle wants me to redesign his garden and he says I can try a new design and I was thinking it would be cool to drill down through the earth's crust and make a big bowl/pit of molten lava in his garden, would this be possible and how deep would I have to dig and what way could I use to mean that the lava remains in the bowl? Horatio Snickers (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless your uncle is living on top of an active volcano, no, it wouldn't be possible. Lava rising up a narrow drilled hole would cool and solidify long before it reached the surface. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, actual lava is completely impossible (and would be quite dangerous if it was possible). However, you could simulate this effect, with a liquid which looks like lava. You could bubble some steam up through it to complete the illusion, and buy a fake volcano with caldera to contain it.

Here's a model with a caldera on top: [5]. Imagine that filled with a thick reddish-orange steaming fluid, and maybe some deep noises coming from it. Note, however, that you probably would want to keep it turned off and covered normally, to keep rain out, and only turn it on when guests are expected. Small kids would probably be the most amused by it.

You could also have the "lava" overflow, be collected at the bottom, and pumped back up, as in a fountain. This would be a bit more of a challenge, though, as insects and such would inevitably need to be filtered out (this would be less of a problem if the fluid stayed put, but you would still need to replace it periodically). StuRat (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure some molecular gastronomists have decorated their table settings with what looks like real lava flowing but is actually some cherry-orange goop. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested to read deepest hole to check out what would be entailed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)