Kalapuya t1_j8ki2iq wrote

Sea level rise is not linear and is not rising uniformly or at all in some places. Many places are experiencing zero or even negative sea level change. This variance can occur even on a kilometer-by-kilometer basis. It is primarily driven by changes in ocean currents, wind, sea surface temperatures, and tectonic and other hydrological dynamics.

On the Oregon Coast for example, some low-lying areas will likely experience 12-18”+ of SLR by 2050. Other areas (primarily in the south), are undergoing rapid tectonic uplift that will outpace sea level rise until at least the mid 2030s, and may experience few impacts because of the high continental freeboard.

These systems are highly dynamic and variable, but it is clear that overall global sea level is rising on average at a MUCH higher rate compared to the historical record and will lead to costly impacts for many communities.


Kalapuya t1_j8ey5jv wrote

The studies even state that as gender equality increases, gender roles become stronger precisely because men and women are more free to choose their career paths, and these choices are different. It’s counter-intuitive but plenty more research demonstrates this effect as cited throughout.


Kalapuya t1_j8exhjt wrote

I am a scientist and you are incorrectly representing the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature I just provided to you. Actually read it:

> The current study represents the first examination of sex differences in personality across countries with large samples, using a multivariate measure of effect size (Mahalanobis D). The results suggest that past studies, that averaged univariate measures of effect size (Cohen’s d), may have substantially underestimated the size of sex differences in personality profiles across countries. Sex differences were markedly higher when using a multivariate measure of effect size. Considering that personality is inherently multidimensional, in line with a growing number of researchers (e.g., Conroy-Beam et al., 2015; Del Giudice, 2009; Vianello et al., 2013), we propose that this represents a more accurate measure of the true difference.

>Previous research has consistently demonstrated that higher levels of gender equality are associated with larger sex differences in personality (Costa et al., 2001; Schmitt et al., 2008). The current study replicated this finding using a multivariate effect size. The relationship was remarkably high, with gender equality accounting for almost 50% of the variance in sex differences across countries.

Gender roles become stronger as gender equality increases, precisely because men and women a more free to choose the profession they want, and these choices are different. Men and women are different. The science says so. Accept it.


Kalapuya t1_j8evzwn wrote

You didn’t read the studies. It’s not social factors - they are inherent preferences driven by biological factors. The point was to control for social factors and the preferences still persisted.


Kalapuya t1_j8eus3h wrote

I’m just following the science, which makes a pretty clear case that, given a more level playing field, men and women naturally gravitate toward some professions more than others. It’s okay that we have differences and different preferences. Diversity is a good thing. Do you really think in a more equal society that 50% of roughnecks would be women?

Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding

Relationship of Gender Differences in Preferences to Economic Development and Gender Equality

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education


Kalapuya t1_j4w6hxe wrote

That article is about “body composition in relation to lean, fat and bone masses”, not necessarily the phenotypic differences between the sexes. Meaning, how muscle, fat, and bone are distributed on the body differentially between the sexes and over time. You can’t pretend like a 6’5” 300lb dude is only that big because of hormones. Genetics has a lot to do with it.


Kalapuya t1_j4sozca wrote

So many studies that frame these kind of findings as “living in greener cities”, which is really just another way of saying that too much city is a bad thing. When will we just accept that there are diminishing returns to public health as urban density increases?


Kalapuya t1_j3mfpnw wrote

This is misleading. We do not “depend” on the ocean for oxygen as the atmospheric reservoir has more than sufficiently built up over the last 2 billion years. About half of the slow drop that built it up came from the oceans, but even if it ceased doing so tomorrow we wouldn’t be deprived of O2 for a long time.