|
quote:Does anyone with applicable knowledge or experience care to comment on this: About 150,000~ people on a big island should be able to sustain themselves, so long as there's enough buy-in from the residents. They just have to hope the weather stays favorable enough for them to maintain agriculture.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
The Ender posted:Funny thing; I was looking for a documentary on the Cretaceous period yesterday because I was just in the mood to hear some British narrator or perhaps Morgan Freeman tell me about dinosaurs. I found this documentary on the Permian mass extinction instead: Christ, a few thousand years. It's unfathomable that we will likely begin to see the direct effects of human-driven climate change within our lifetimes when the industrial revolution only began a few hundred years ago. History wise this only seems comparable to when humanity had to struggle to not kill ourselves via global nuclear war, only in this case the consequences are so drawn out that we can't react accordingly as a species due to our shortsightedness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
Edit: Derp derp can't read.
Tanreall fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
So what's the best life plan to survive this? Can I keep playing Civ 5 for the time being and just relax, or should I throw everything away, start taking a few wilderness survival classes and then drop out of college to get used to living in the woods?  Edit: What makes me feel better about all this philosophically is that modern society has always been built on abuse and exploitation, so maybe this is the first step to a better world or something. Maybe tribal living will grow on me. Bullfrog fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:So what's the best life plan to survive this? Can I keep playing Civ 5 for the time being and just relax, or should I throw everything away, start taking a few wilderness survival classes and then drop out of college to get used to living in the woods? There's a middle ground between "literally do nothing" and "gently caress its Armageddon I'm gonna become a hermit." For example, you could try reducing your carbon footprint, joining an activist organization, and actually reading the thread you're posting in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:So what's the best life plan to survive this? Can I keep playing Civ 5 for the time being and just relax, or should I throw everything away, start taking a few wilderness survival classes and then drop out of college to get used to living in the woods? You aren't going to die (well, not from climate change). Remember: the bad news will be solidified in 2050, and the effects will start to present themselves in 2100. I dunno about you, but if I'm still alive in 2050, I'll be a senile old fart who probably won't give two fucks about much of anything. By 2100 I'll almost certainly be dead of either heart disease or cancer (Mortality bingo! Everyone's a loser! Yay!). It'll be the next 2-3 generations that will weather the storm we've made for them (and which might not make it out).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Funny thing; I was looking for a documentary on the Cretaceous period yesterday because I was just in the mood to hear some British narrator or perhaps Morgan Freeman tell me about dinosaurs. I found this documentary on the Permian mass extinction instead: Note that high temperatures were not the only factor in the Permian extinction, only the primary cause. Scientists believe higher water temperatures caused a decrease in oxygen circulation in the ocean, leading to a deep water anoxic environment. Dying organisms from the surface that sank were decomposed by anaerobic bacteria, excreting hydrogen sulfide in the process, which ended up poisoning much of the life on land. One of the scariest things about climate change is its unpredictability, not only in how humans will respond to the pressures placed on us, but also the cascading environmental effects that go beyond our current ability to understand or predict.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Dr. Furious posted:Note that high temperatures were not the only factor in the Permian extinction, only the primary cause. Scientists believe higher water temperatures caused a decrease in oxygen circulation in the ocean, leading to a deep water anoxic environment. Dying organisms from the surface that sank were decomposed by anaerobic bacteria, excreting hydrogen sulfide in the process, which ended up poisoning much of the life on land. What spooks me the most about the series of possible consequences is that we (humans that is) can engineer highly dense cities, we can engineer strong buildings and controlled indoor climates, but once the food or water runs out or the atmosphere composition changes or some crazy superbug takes root in the population it's going to go to poo poo really fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
The Ender posted:You aren't going to die (well, not from climate change). Remember: the bad news will be solidified in 2050, and the effects will start to present themselves in 2100. Uh, unless I'm imagining this:  the effects have "started to present themselves" already. Not sure what you're referring to, but most realistic modelling is saying we're going to see severe impacts long before midcentury.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
Models from the United Nations are already showing significant declines in birth rates around the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
quote:the effects have "started to present themselves" already. Not sure what you're referring to, but most realistic modelling is saying we're going to see severe impacts long before midcentury. Any given drought isn't necessarily directly linked to climate change, though (just like every storm isn't). I haven't seen any data that suggests this year's drought was due to anthropogenic warming; doesn't mean the data isn't there, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions until someone's published work arguing that the drought we saw was caused by climate change. What we'll see by 2050 is how many gigatons of CO2 are in the atmosphere, and from there we can extrapolate with reasonable accuracy how much we can expect to see in 2100, along with the associated global mean temperature. The drought this year was bad, but it wasn't as bad as a mega-drought. Once we've seen a resurgence of the old dust bowl storms, we'll know the poo poo's hit the fan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 09:30
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Any given drought isn't necessarily directly linked to climate change, though (just like every storm isn't). I haven't seen any data that suggests this year's drought was due to anthropogenic warming; doesn't mean the data isn't there, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions until someone's published work arguing that the drought we saw was caused by climate change.  This one comes from a combined PDSI models. Here are the projections for 2030-2040. The Dust Bowl would've showed up as a -4 or -5. It has more to do with bad farming practices than actual anthropogenic climate change, but changes in ocean levels will definitely gently caress water supply and thus gently caress our agricultural industries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 09:57
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Any given drought isn't necessarily directly linked to climate change, though (just like every storm isn't). I haven't seen any data that suggests this year's drought was due to anthropogenic warming; doesn't mean the data isn't there, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions until someone's published work arguing that the drought we saw was caused by climate change. One reason the 1950s, 88-89 and 2010-present drought haven't gone dustbowl dusty is because of a change in how plowing gets done that leaves more plant cover, an altered fallow system that keeps more land in production and cheap pumping of irrigation water off the ogallala aquifer  Once we've seen a resurgence of the old dustbowl storms, "we'll be permafucked"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:cheap pumping of irrigation water off the ogallala aquifer Fun fact about the Ogallala Aquifer - the Keystone XL pipeline, if approved, will pass directly over a portion of it, which risks benzene contamination of the aquifer in the event of a spill. Benzene is a known human carcinogen and also causes massive health problems in cattle. Additionally, dilbit (the tarry sludge form that oil sands are transported in to make flow through the pipeline possible) is apparently a real bitch to clean up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Any given drought isn't necessarily directly linked to climate change, though (just like every storm isn't). I haven't seen any data that suggests this year's drought was due to anthropogenic warming; doesn't mean the data isn't there, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions until someone's published work arguing that the drought we saw was caused by climate change. There's never going to be any data that says a particular event is the result of climate change. The frequency of drought is increasing, and the best models we have (eg the NCAR study Job Truniht got that figure from) suggests that we'll see permanent dustbowls throughout much of the world's most productive agricultural land before midcentury. Climate effects are happening now, they're killing people and ruining harvests now, and we have about a decade before it's too late to avoid substantial effects on the subsistence routines of the majority of the world's population, which will be felt long before 2050.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
It's been said before, but I wonder if in 30-50 years we will be facing the results of these models or the results of whatever half-baked geoengineering scheme gets launched in the meantime. Or both, assuming said scheme fails to lower temperatures and just has some other terrible effect on the environment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Models from the United Nations are already showing significant declines in birth rates around the world. That probably has very little do to with climate change and has always been part of UN growth models that don't assume catastrophic global warming. Nobody thought world population was just going to increase forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Invisible Handjob posted:It's been said before, but I wonder if in 30-50 years we will be facing the results of these models or the results of whatever half-baked geoengineering scheme gets launched in the meantime. Or both, assuming said scheme fails to lower temperatures and just has some other terrible effect on the environment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That probably has very little do to with climate change and has always been part of UN growth models that don't assume catastrophic global warming. Nobody thought world population was just going to increase forever. Yes, the UN has projected very slow population growth in most countries in the coming decades for quite some time. You might find historical estimates somewhere near here: http://esa.un.org/wpp/Other-Information/publications_2.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
The Ender posted:What we'll see by 2050 is how many gigatons of CO2 are in the atmosphere, and from there we can extrapolate with reasonable accuracy how much we can expect to see in 2100, along with the associated global mean temperature. The drought this year was bad, but it wasn't as bad as a mega-drought. Once we've seen a resurgence of the old dust bowl storms, we'll know the poo poo's hit the fan. Well I don't think the truly awful doom and gloom stuff well be in the lifetimes of anyone reading this now, I do think it’s safe to say were starting to feel some serious effects right now. I think before we pass, we'll all live to see the "Heartland" become largely barren, massive famines (which for us first worlders just means higher food prices and less available food) of course this does coincide with our global economy hitting the shitter too, so people will likely starve in America and Europe, much more than already do now of course. I think we‘ll see some more awful super storms like Sandy and Katrina. More horrible tornados like Joplin. More severe flooding. Each of these storms has a cumulative effect. Displaced people, destroyed lives and property, deaths, businesses ruined, insurance companies covering less and less, and further hits to already decimated state and local budgets. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty in even 2030. This being said, it’s not going to be Mad-Max. Maybe more like martial law, and your unemployed a bunch. Just pretty lovely and no fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Holy Calamity! posted:Christ, a few thousand years. It's unfathomable that we will likely begin to see the direct effects of human-driven climate change within our lifetimes when the industrial revolution only began a few hundred years ago. History wise this only seems comparable to when humanity had to struggle to not kill ourselves via global nuclear war, only in this case the consequences are so drawn out that we can't react accordingly as a species due to our shortsightedness. Its more than fathomal, we actually are seeing it, and have been for a few decades now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That probably has very little do to with climate change and has always been part of UN growth models that don't assume catastrophic global warming. Nobody thought world population was just going to increase forever. Its actually something that happens in most species. As population gets to a certain point, animals stop bonking. Conversely however under enough environmental stress animals START bonking again trying desparately to pass their genetic code on before its too late. Ask any dope grower, if you want to induce weed to start budding you gently caress with its light supply or nutrient supply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
TACD posted:I would be shocked if we didn't see increasing numbers of desperate geo-engineering schemes put into place by nations and other groups imperiled by the more immediate effects of climate change. (Remember this?) Then climate deniers can point to the actions of 'rogue eco-terrorists' as exactly the sort of harm they expected 'global warmists' to cause. I will be absolutely amazed if India doesn't start doing something like shooting sulfides into the stratosphere. They have the technical base and economy to do a lot of these geo-engineering ideas, and are looking straight down the barrel of multiple guns: Super-powered monsoons, Chinese water supplies drying up/being cut off, heavy heatwaves, extreme food demands... They are aggressively taking actions with their nuclear program and such now, but no way that will be enough. They have a strong motive and the means, so I fully expect them to take action
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
The problem is that climate change is something that a democraic especially American system is almost impossible to deal with. The positive effects won't be felt until everyone's out of office but the negatives are felt immediately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:24
|
|
Bullfrog posted:So what's the best life plan to survive this? Can I keep playing Civ 5 for the time being and just relax, or should I throw everything away, start taking a few wilderness survival classes and then drop out of college to get used to living in the woods? I think Civilization 5 won't give you the grit you need to survive the apocalypse. I recommend Oregon Trail 2 and Chrono Trigger (2300AD and 65 000 000 BC)
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
I just randomly came across this 'pedia article for this denialist Michael Crichton technothriller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear I don't have any familiarity with Crichton so he had no reputation to ruin in my eyes, but what a creep. I like that the petroleum geology organization that lauded it reversed their position on anthro. climate change a few years later, when the evidence became even more disastrously apparent and their actual memebers overwhelmingly accepted it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:I just randomly came across this 'pedia article for this denialist Michael Crichton technothriller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear Oh God what an awful book. I was a fan of Timeline and Jurassic Park, so I picked-up State of Fear when it was released. You can just tell throughout that Crichton did not do this as a passion project - it basically relies on cheap depictions of naked women to keep the reader's attention, and the space between sex scenes is interspersed with dull monologues about the great scientist conspiracy that fudges data about climate change in order to make white people fee guilty. I'd like to think that whatever finally killed Crichton had retarded his mental faculties or something while he was writing State of Fear & 'NeXt', which is actually a worse book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Oh God what an awful book. Was Next that sillytits one about the politician who injected himself with Jesus' blood that he scraped off some relic, and then started having bouts of insanity where he believed he was Jesus?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Was Next that sillytits one about the politician who injected himself with Jesus' blood that he scraped off some relic, and then started having bouts of insanity where he believed he was Jesus? No, Next was the hopelessly stupid & creepy book about genes, where Crichton posits that the very cleverly named corporation 'BioGen' proceeds to buy people's 'cells' and 'genes' and then for some reason they are allowed to hunt these people down and 'extract' these cells and genes by, like, killing them and draining all of their blood. Because, you know, that's the best way to get someone's cells / genes. The plot is a very, very meager smokescreen for Crichton to write up a very graphic pedophile sex scene behind. Yeah. It's like, "Hey, that was nice to know about you, I guess."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Oh God what an awful book. What the gently caress is this dude with his anti-science thing. First "genes bad" and now "climate science bad". I mean gently caress, with jurassic park you might come to the conclusion he's striking some sort of wise environmental fable, but no, pans out he's just an anti-science dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 12:05
|
|
|
duck monster posted:What the gently caress is this dude with his anti-science thing. First "genes bad" and now "climate science bad". But then there's Airframe, which is actually pretty good as I recall. Basically a book about an air disaster investigation with some drama and corporate espionage, but mainly about the investigation and how the most heavily engineered part of a plane is the wing. Which would be correct and I don't remember it being a stupid book, just starting off with how weird the premise was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
duck monster posted:What the gently caress is this dude with his anti-science thing. First "genes bad" and now "climate science bad". No idea. He did go to a spoon bending party once, and he thought it was all so very convincing, but he was anti-science way before that. I just liked Jurassic Park because, y'know, dinosaurs. And they ate people. And I was like 17.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 12:16
|
|
|
The thing about science in thriller is that it basically has to go horribly wrong or you have no plot. Skynet has to be evil, the teleporter in the Fly has to screw up, and so on. It's probably more about the reader whether they take away the message, "Science can do awesome stuff, but we have to be careful about how it's applied", or, "Science is bad and can only lead to suffering no matter how good your intentions."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
Well thats the thing. Jurassic park was a ripping yarn, and on its own, Ok fair enough, an alegory for loving with nature or something? Thats what makes this feel all out of context in a way I can only integrate in the worst way. I mean I'm not saying he can't write. Jurassic park was plenty of fun. And gently caress, Orson scott card has atrocious opinions, but the fucken hillbilly can write up a storm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Fun fact about the Ogallala Aquifer - the Keystone XL pipeline, if approved, will pass directly over a portion of it, which risks benzene contamination of the aquifer in the event of a spill. Benzene is a known human carcinogen and also causes massive health problems in cattle. Additionally, dilbit (the tarry sludge form that oil sands are transported in to make flow through the pipeline possible) is apparently a real bitch to clean up. It's one of those things where it would cost two billion dollars to route the pipeline around the dang aquifier, and, it would be worth it. (assuming the better option of 'not builidng it at all' is off the table)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
quote:Bullfrog posted: I found it interesting that Civ 1 and 2(and I think Civ 3) both had global warming penalties; if you did not keep your pollution under control, you would push the earth into a higher tipping point, and some of your plains would turn to deserts. I was surprised that Civ 5 does not have this mechanic - I just chalked it up as a micromanaging mechanic; but I wonder if somewhere along the line, someone at Firaxis decided to remove it to "reduce controversy". On another note: the guy playing that 9 year endless war Civ 2 game did mention that global warming started causing some pretty interesting effects in his game - making some territories that were lush now barren, and some vice-versa. As time wore on, more and more battles are fought for these remaining high-yield squares.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I was a fan of Timeline and Jurassic Park, so I picked-up State of Fear when it was released. You can just tell throughout that Crichton did not do this as a passion project - it basically relies on cheap depictions of naked women to keep the reader's attention, and the space between sex scenes is interspersed with dull monologues about the great scientist conspiracy that fudges data about climate change in order to make white people fee guilty. This is a tangent, so sorry, but I hate when conservatives or anyone opposed to progressive reform/leftism/cultural awareness and action based on that sensitivity accuses people of being "guilty" (or related to this "white knights"). No, I'm angry at the ridiculous evils our planet's human ancestors seemed to love and abide. I don't feel guilty at all, actually, but I do feel powerless and ignored.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:This is a tangent, so sorry, but I hate when conservatives or anyone opposed to progressive reform/leftism/cultural awareness and action based on that sensitivity accuses people of being "guilty" (or related to this "white knights"). No, I'm angry at the ridiculous evils our planet's human ancestors seemed to love and abide. I don't feel guilty at all, actually, but I do feel powerless and ignored. They want you to stop bringing up things that make them feel uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
What effect do the rising CO2 levels have on humans? Is the increase high enough to significantly affect us physiologically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Gort posted:What effect do the rising CO2 levels have on humans? Is the increase high enough to significantly affect us physiologically? People regularly encounter co2 levels of 1500 to 2000 ppm in buildings that have a lot of occupants wothout noticing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:22
|
|