Incidentally, I don't know why they call it "lab grown" or "cultured" or "vat" meat, didn't they learn from the whole grown diamonds thing?
Synthetic diamonds? Nah, son, those are
bloodless diamonds.
Cultured meat? Pfft, like it has a monocle and cane or some shit, hah, that's
cruelty-free meat right there.
Unfortunately, if global warming keeps going the way it is, the wet-bulb zone near the equator will grow. Deserts will grow. Sea levels will rise and destroy tons of cropland and houses, and this will cause mass migration to actual livable areas combined with a lack of food production. It will likely turn into a bloodbath.
Literally impossible for a planet to grow both warmer and more arid without like, blasting off huge chunks of the ocean and atmosphere into space*.
Deserts reach their largest extent during the peaks of ice ages, they retreat and disappear during the warmest parts of interglacials.
*smashing a large enough chunk of rock (or smaller chunk at sufficient velocity) would definitely raise the temperature of all locations near the surface while doing away with all that wet stuff nicely
The planet doesn't need to become more arid. It just needs to have the water redirected to somewhere else. If the heat rises in an area, water will evaporate faster. Plants will die. And when the plants die, the soil loses it's ability to hold water and resist wind. Plants can't grow in it as easily. So the edges of forests and jungles will slowly make way to desert.
...you're describing parts of what happens when a planet becomes more arid.
Increased evaporation on land means increased evaporation over the oceans, increased temperatures brings an increase in moisture moving through the atmosphere
unless you get rid of the oceans somehow while reduced temperatures result in a lower ability for the air to hold and transport moisture. Similarly when it cools far enough you get things like glaciers expanding, growing ice caps, AND less evaporation over the oceans meaning less water vapor to start with, which is less likely to linger in the colder air, and is more likely to end up stuck locked up in ice once it falls back out of the air.
In order for a warming planet to become more arid with larger deserts we would have to be at an improbable maxima for the water cycle NOW, and at no other points, we know deserts expand during the coldest parts of ice ages, and we know the sahara turned green last time it got significantly warmer than today.
If someone claims it is going to get drier if it gets hotter, they are either making a reasonable sounding but incorrect assumption based on the idea that deserts are hot, so a hotter planet is going to be more like a desert... or they're deliberately misinforming you because they should goddamn well know better.
Antarctica is a desert, that might sound strange until you note that a desert is a result of precipitation falling below a certain level year round, not temperature ranges.
I don't personally understand why someone would want to actively mislead others by claiming global warming is going to make deserts expand, perhaps they assume that sounds scarier than the actual effects and they're so concerned they'd rather sacrifice the truth in an effort to motivate others?
I can only guess this is similar to the claim that a warmer planet would have more intense and frequent storms, which sounds scary, and at first might seem plausible, right? Summer sees tornado and hurricane season kick into high gear, so the logical leap there seems fine, but it's the difference in temperatures between the warmer areas near the equator during summer and the much cooler polar regions which produce such intense storms so often.
How would a reduced temperature gradient from the poles to the equator IMPROVE the efficiency of this process so vastly as to enable it to extract more energy than it already does? How would this not end up violating the fucking laws of thermodynamics actually? Same goes for the whole "are we going to need category 6 and 7 for hurricanes in the future" scaremongering, the maximum windspeed and dimensions of a hurricane are set by the height of the freaking troposphere and rotation of the planet, while the energy available for these big whirly heat engines to transport from the equator towards the poles is--you guessed it--highest when the difference between them is greatest. Reducing the average gradient in their path is going to reduce the energy available per season, so the only possible way you could get comparable storms is if the lower categories are less frequent, which might happen, sure, let's say it will... that still doesn't change the pre-existing physical constraints on their development which are due to things like the size+roundness of the planet, density+lapse rate of the atmosphere, and the rate it rotates.
Just saying, I have no motive beyond a preference for accurate information, so I try to help if I see something incorrect pop up in a post. Prior to learning I was on the spectrum I never understood why this always results in a weird backlash as people get defensive and insulted like I'm trying to attack them or like... get one over on them or some shit? Now though, I am aware that many beliefs are reinforced within certain groups and even become structural parts of that group identity, and accordingly it can seem like I'm seeking to damage one group to improve the status of another group or something... I am not part of any group though, my interest in social interaction is largely from a confused distance, but it remains difficult when I see someone sharing false information with others to simply ignore it.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3670371 times)