Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

a lovely poster: Aug 5, 2011; by Pipski

Dystram posted:

Actually he says to go build sustainability circle communities, essentially a group of survivalists, rather than singular survivalists. Did YOU watch the video?

"Essentially a group of survivalists" -every civilization ever

Permaculture survivalist has a specific context, especially in this thread. He is specifically telling people NOT to go out on their own and try to survive off the land. The only way we'll see ourselves through these crises is together. I have trouble understanding why someone who understand the benefits of permaculture would see a move towards it as "needless". What's to debunk exactly?

The thing that separates survivalists and civilization is just the willingness to work/trust with/in your common man.

# ? Aug 10, 2013 17:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 15:06

Locus: Feb 28, 2004; But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won.

As an aside from that video, civilization described as "a group of survivalists" is an early, transitional stage. Saying that a group of survivalists is every civilization ever is like saying that a group of carpenters are the same as a homeowners association or an office that handles property taxes and repossessions.

Once things are somewhat stable within a large group, power shifts to the upper levels where complex layers of thinking and governance are piled on top of the essentials year after year. Most members of civilizations like the United States are consumers. They work, they live in an artificial world of conceptual values and trade, then they go to a store or restaurant and buy food that has been grown, prepared, and shipped across the country or world for them. Most people are not directly involved in anything resembling "real life" as it would be for someone living in a community that had to provide for itself without the aid of a global infrastructure filled with existing wealth.

Our civilization in the U.S. is poo poo at a lot of the important things. Our culture at large decided going to college and getting a fancy job was the upper-cass thing to do, and now we have a shortage of people in our workforce who can weld, perform skilled labor, and actually know how to maintain the most important and basic aspects of our world. Meanwhile, everyone with a "good" degree they probably weren't even sure they wanted is getting hosed over by the predatory systems that have grown around education and loans. Huge percentages of citizens are being forced into wage-slavery, so that they cannot do anything but barely subsist, and the wealth and work they create goes to people who give almost nothing back to the community and nation at large. Worse, our government wastes trillions of dollars while the highest level of politics puts on plays squabbling about pop-culture issues which turn into a frenzy of shocking news stories, and no one pays attention to anything remotely important.

None of that stuff, except possibly the terrifying police state we're developing at a breakneck speed, will be of any use in a world facing a fraction of the adversity that is predicted in this thread.

Locus fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Aug 12, 2013

# ? Aug 12, 2013 14:23

Blackbird Fly: Mar 8, 2011; by toby

On the topic of sustainability, there's a neat little trick to light your house as if you were using lightbulbs without using electricity:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liter_of_Light.
I imagine a creative person could use chemical mixtures to illuminate a few appliances.

# ? Aug 13, 2013 23:46

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

Can anyone make sense of this? I notice some problems on the graph, but I'm just wondering where it plays into the science as it stands. (I really want it to be true, if only so that the Montreal Protocol ends up saving the world).

edit: this is the paper: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

edit2: bah never mind, apparently this claim is old as dirt. Wonder why it got published.

Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 14, 2013

# ? Aug 14, 2013 17:21

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

Qing-Bin Lu is a nutbar who refuses to engage with any criticism of his work. The whole thing revolves around the cosmic ray hypothesis for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

# ? Aug 14, 2013 18:44

TehSaurus: Jun 12, 2006

Paper Mac posted:

Qing-Bin Lu is a nutbar who refuses to engage with any criticism of his work. The whole thing revolves around the cosmic ray hypothesis for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

The correlations in that article are really astonishing though, even in a lack of evidence. Did he have to doctor things a great deal to get that? I mean, my initial reaction is to dismiss it as crazy talk, but disruptive discoveries always look like crazy talk.

# ? Aug 14, 2013 20:28

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

"Doctoring" isn't the right word, but he basically selected a scaling and curve fitting protocol with no rationale other than "it makes my argument seem right".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lu-2013-cfcs.html

quote:

n this paper, Lu used curve fitting to blame global warming on a combination of solar activity and CFCs. First he randomly scaled a total solar irradiance (TSI) reconstruction to match the surface temperature record as closely as possible.

...

There is a proportional relationship between changes in TSI and changes in surface temperatures, but it's a physical relationship. You can't just choose whatever proportionality is convenient for your argument. In fact what Lu has done is assume that TSI explains most pre-1970 global surface warming, and then claim that he's proven this is the case. It's circular logic, like fixing a card game and then claiming you're a great card player when you win.

The only reason Lu's TSI model matches the surface temperature data is because he forced it to match through curve fitting � by refusing to apply any physical constraints to his model. Then when his unphysical model fits the temperature data reasonably closely, he declares that he's shown "that the solar effect played the dominant role in climate change prior to 1970." In reality he's shown no such thing, he's simply assumed that his conclusion is true.

# ? Aug 14, 2013 20:37

TehSaurus: Jun 12, 2006

Paper Mac posted:

"Doctoring" isn't the right word, but he basically selected a scaling and curve fitting protocol with no rationale other than "it makes my argument seem right".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lu-2013-cfcs.html

Why would anyone publish that paper? I would think at the least that the folks at University of Waterloo would be like "THIS ISN'T SCIENCE!?" but I guess that's asking too much.

That's disappointing though, for a few hours today I thought maybe we weren't doomed. Oh well.

# ? Aug 14, 2013 20:56

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

TehSaurus posted:

Why would anyone publish that paper?

It was published in literally the worst physics journal on the planet, not a climate journal, so it's unlikely anyone who knew enough to shoot it down was involved in its review.

TehSaurus posted:

I would think at the least that the folks at University of Waterloo would be like "THIS ISN'T SCIENCE!?" but I guess that's asking too much.

Yeah, I have no idea what UW is thinking. They're high if they think pushing this stuff is going to get more funding coming their way.

# ? Aug 14, 2013 21:05

Xibanya: Sep 17, 2012; Clever Betty

I just want to chime in with my two cents on the whole issue of people shunning blue collar jobs that utilize vital skills (saw it back a few pages on my phone at work).

It really irritates me when people on SA claim that we young people shun these jobs just because we think that only white collar work is good enough for us or some sort of snobbery like that. I took some shop classes in high school that involved engine repair, soldering, re-wiring and so forth, and I really enjoyed them but I would never want to take a job that involved welding, car repair, plumbing, etcetera, for one big reason: I'm female.

I've read many accounts of women in these jobs, and while some have positive experiences, the unfortunate fact is that many women find that in typical blue collar fields such as construction, auto repair, mining, and so forth, they are overwhelmingly made to feel unwelcome by their male peers, passed up for promotion, and harassed on the job. Attitudes may slowly be changing, but the fact of the matter is, Rosie the Riveter aside, there is not a strong tradition of women excelling in such occupations in the USA. In the era when a man could make a living wage as a welder, his wife was expected to do all the housework - which, before the invention of the dishwasher and washer/dryer, was indeed a full-time job. (See the chapter in Ha-Joon Chang's book "23 Things They Don�t Tell You About Capitalism" titled "The washing machine has changed society more than the Internet.)

As an aside, this is one theory as to why female university enrollment is currently higher that male enrollment. A lot of boys from poorer backgrounds know they can probably get by in a blue-collar job. There are strong disincentives for women to even consider such positions, so a girl from a poorer background will work all the harder to go to college. It's not that these girls are smarter than the boys, they're just more motivated.

If we want to encourage more young people to look into jobs that confer skills that will be vital for a small survivalist community's very existence, you could focus on the half of the human race that has traditionally been marginalized in such lines of work.

# ? Aug 16, 2013 01:53

TehSaurus: Jun 12, 2006

Xibanya posted:

I just want to chime in with my two cents on the whole issue of people shunning blue collar jobs that utilize vital skills (saw it back a few pages on my phone at work).

It really irritates me when people on SA claim that we young people shun these jobs just because we think that only white collar work is good enough for us or some sort of snobbery like that. I took some shop classes in high school that involved engine repair, soldering, re-wiring and so forth, and I really enjoyed them but I would never want to take a job that involved welding, car repair, plumbing, etcetera, for one big reason: I'm female.

I've read many accounts of women in these jobs, and while some have positive experiences, the unfortunate fact is that many women find that in typical blue collar fields such as construction, auto repair, mining, and so forth, they are overwhelmingly made to feel unwelcome by their male peers, passed up for promotion, and harassed on the job. Attitudes may slowly be changing, but the fact of the matter is, Rosie the Riveter aside, there is not a strong tradition of women excelling in such occupations in the USA. In the era when a man could make a living wage as a welder, his wife was expected to do all the housework - which, before the invention of the dishwasher and washer/dryer, was indeed a full-time job. (See the chapter in Ha-Joon Chang's book "23 Things They Don�t Tell You About Capitalism" titled "The washing machine has changed society more than the Internet.)

As an aside, this is one theory as to why female university enrollment is currently higher that male enrollment. A lot of boys from poorer backgrounds know they can probably get by in a blue-collar job. There are strong disincentives for women to even consider such positions, so a girl from a poorer background will work all the harder to go to college. It's not that these girls are smarter than the boys, they're just more motivated.

If we want to encourage more young people to look into jobs that confer skills that will be vital for a small survivalist community's very existence, you could focus on the half of the human race that has traditionally been marginalized in such lines of work.

This is sort of a digression so I don't want to add too much except to say that everything you say is correct. However all of that has a smaller impact than the society wide denigration of blue collar jobs. Parents tell their kids to go to college, and we've destroyed labor unions and working conditions such that blue collar jobs aren't very attractive economically, either. I'm not minimizing the associated feminist issues of course, but in the context of climate change I don't believe it's the chief driver in the decline of useful trade skills.

# ? Aug 16, 2013 15:55

reni89: May 3, 2012; by angerbeet

Sorry just ignore this.

# ? Aug 18, 2013 06:01

Blackbird Fly: Mar 8, 2011; by toby

Squalid posted:

In a worst case climate-change scenario average temperatures rise above 40 C across the tropical belt. At this temperature photosynthesis becomes difficult for most plants and the rate of warming precludes adaptation of most flora. The tropical basins burn as the forests succumb to heat; 4/5ths of all terrestrial plant species go extinct and more than half of all land animals. In the oceans acidification, heat, and anoxia destroy all coral reefs, permanently. Cnidaria Anthozoa vanish completely, along with 25% of all marine diversity, and their former habitat becomes sludge inhabited only by hypoxic tolerant brachiopods and bivalves. Complex reef building organisms will take tens of millions of years to reappear and when they do they will be strange and unrecognizable. Changes in Hadley cell circulation reduce much of the modern temperate regions to uninhabitable desert, combined with destruction of the tropics humanity loses the vast majority of arable land. Polar temperatures rise to between 10 to 20 �C and soon crocodiles are found swimming in the arctic ocean, as they did during the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago.

Will any of this happen in the next 100 years? No. Is some of it completely improbable even in worst case scenarios? Yeah. Just sharing a few of my recurrent nightmares here.

An article supporting this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Wakening_the_Kraken.html

# ? Aug 21, 2013 11:51

Ronald Nixon: Mar 18, 2012

http://qz.com/116276/at-the-root-of-egyptian-rage-is-a-deepening-resource-crisis/

Points out that changing climate exacerbates problems. It seems likely to be a telling example of future scenarios globally.

# ? Aug 21, 2013 16:56

Blackbird Fly: Mar 8, 2011; by toby

It seems like the Pentagon is preparing for the worst:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/14/climate-change-energy-shocks-nsa-prism

# ? Aug 26, 2013 11:37

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Ronald Nixon posted:

http://qz.com/116276/at-the-root-of-egyptian-rage-is-a-deepening-resource-crisis/

Points out that changing climate exacerbates problems. It seems likely to be a telling example of future scenarios globally.

There is a distinct threat of "food wars" tied to the prospect of climate change. Desertification of areas like the American Midwest bodes incredibly poorly for the global poor. Much of the equivalent latitudes South of the Equator are covered in water or coastal enough as to make agriculture impossible beyond a tribal subsistence level. Advances in soil-free agriculture can theoretically abate these issues but the impetus and investment are simply not there. Furthermore, they probably require resources far beyond what is presently required by traditional soil agriculture. You've got to replace the work of an entire ecosystem. Alternatively you could simply bring the field inside and control a microclimate that way, possibly making for optimum crop yields, but again, impetus and investment. By the time it becomes clear to the "right" people that such steps are needed, it will be too late to make it the new normal, and "real" foods like fruits and vegetables will become a luxury item with various adulterated starches becoming the kibble of the masses. We see this already in the division between the first-world non-poor and poor. It's even more prevalent with USAID food distribution to places like famine-stricken African nations. The stuff handed out there is basically soy hardtack with next to no nutritional value. It's meant to fill stomachs with cheap calories and little else.

# ? Aug 26, 2013 14:39

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Given USAID budgets for food aid, I can live with them distributing soy hardtack.

But you yourself note that it's a symptom of a bigger trend / problem, so.

# ? Aug 27, 2013 06:38

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

Hadn't heard about this Ecuadoran initiative. I can see why countries didn't send any money; paying off a country so it wont extract hydrocarbons doesn't make sense given the current geopolitical and economic logic. But still, very depressing.

http://www.straight.com/news/414291/gwynne-dyer-another-defeat-environment

quote:

Gwynne Dyer: Another defeat for the environment

�THE WORLD HAS failed us,� said Ecuador�s President Rafael Correa. �I have signed the executive decree for the liquidation of the Yasuni-ITT trust fund and with this, ended the initiative.� What might have been a model for a system that helps poor countries avoid the need to ruin their environment in order to make ends meet has failed, because the rich countries would not support it.

In 2007, oil drillers found a reservoir of an estimated 846 million barrels of heavy crude in Yasuni National Park, in Ecuador�s part of the Amazon. But the park is home to two indigenous tribes that have so far succeeded in living in voluntary isolation�and it is listed by UNESCO as a world biosphere reserve. A single hectare of Yasuni contains more species of trees than all of North America.

Ecuador, which cannot access finance on international markets, desperately needs money, and the oil meant money: an estimated $7.2 billion over the next decade.

Nevertheless, Ecuadorians were horrified by the pollution, deforestation, and cultural destruction that the drilling would cause: a large majority of them opposed drilling in the park. And then Energy Minister Alberto Acosta had an idea.

What if Ecuador just left the oil in the ground? In return, Acosta hoped the rest of the world would come up with $3.6 billion (half of the forecast income from oil revenues) over the next decade, to be spent on non-polluting energy generation like hydroelectric and solar power schemes and on social programmes to help Ecuador�s many poor.

The pay-off for the foreign contributors to this fund would come mainly from the fact that the oil under Yasuni would never be burned, thereby preventing more than 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from going into the atmosphere. Only a drop in the bucket, perhaps, but if the model worked it could be applied widely elsewhere, offering the poor countries an alternative to selling everything they can dig up or cut down.

The idea won the support of the United Nations Development Programme, which agreed to administer the Yasuni-ITT trust fund. It was set up in 2009, and the money started to come in. But it didn�t flood in; it just trickled.

Chile, Colombia, Turkey, and Georgia donated token amounts. Brazil and Indonesia (which would certainly benefit from the same sort of arrangement) promised donations eventually but didn�t actually put any money up. Among the developed countries, Spain, Belgium, and France also promised donations, Italy wrote off $51 million of Ecuadorian debt, and Germany offered $50 million worth of technical assistance to the park.

And that was it. Not a penny from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, or Scandinavia. Individuals put in what they could afford (including high-profile donors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore). But four years later, the pledges only amounted to $116 million. Actual cash deposits were only $13 million. So last week, Correa pulled the plug.

�It was not charity we sought from the international community,� Correa said, �but co-responsibility in the face of climate change.� Maybe Correa could have waited a bit longer, but the idea was always Acosta�s baby, and Acosta ran for president against Correa last February and lost.

It was also Acosta who led the successful drive to make Ecuador the first country to include the �rights of nature� in its new constitution. This is a radical break from traditional environmental regulatory systems, which regard nature as property. Ecuadorian law now recognizes the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish. It gives people the right to petition on the behalf of ecosystems, and requires the government to take these rights seriously.

Like the trust fund, this is an idea that may ultimately bear much fruit. For the moment, however, it�s just too great an intellectual and political leap to demote the property rights of actual voters (and campaign contributors) to a status below the right to survive and thrive of mere ecosystems�even though we all depend on these ecosystems to survive ourselves.

So we continue on our merry way to a global meltdown�and this just in from London! Fracking is now more important than wind power!

When the Conservatives came into office three years ago they pledged to be the �greenest government ever�, but they have fallen in love with shale gas, CO2 emissions and all. The British government has announced a new tax regime for fracking described by the Chancellor, George Osborne, as �the most generous for shale (gas) in the world.�

Not only that, but there will be �no standard minimum separation distance� between a fracking rig and people�s houses. Planners considering drilling applications �should give great weight to the benefits of minerals extraction, including to the economy.� In practice, that means that they can drill wherever they want, including your front garden.

Whereas local people will now have a veto on the construction of any wind turbines in their neighbourhood. Prime Minister David Cameron�s office explained that �it is very important that local voters are taken into account when it comes to wind farms � if people don't want wind farms in their local areas they will be able to stop them.�

It�s okay to ruin the planet, but God forbid that you should ruin the view.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 17:32

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Eh, it isn't that far out an idea. To some extent we are already doing exactly this, except the hydrocarbons donors are paying to keep sequestered are in the form of rain forests and not petroleum.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 19:03

Protagorean: May 19, 2013; by Azathoth

I have this nifty Chrome plug-in that made that article all the more soul-crushing:

quote:

...Ecuador, which cannot access finance on international markets, desperately needs money, and the oil meant money: an estimated $7.2 billion [≈ net worth of Rupert Murdoch, media mogul, 2011] over the next decade.

...But four years later, the pledges only amounted to $116 million [≈ net worth of Dr. Dre, rapper, 2011]

So hopelessly screwed :smith:

# ? Aug 28, 2013 19:21

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Part of the entire loving point of fracking technology is so you can put the wells (whose casings will inevitably be underbidded, hosed up, and leak, apparently) wherever is least inconvenient and cover more horizontal space for each. drat it. :argh:

# ? Aug 28, 2013 19:25

baka kaba: Jul 19, 2003; PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Part of the entire loving point of fracking technology is so you can put the wells (whose casings will inevitably be underbidded, hosed up, and leak, apparently) wherever is least inconvenient and cover more horizontal space for each. drat it.

Not necessarily in the UK, the geology is more complex than the US so there's no guarantee you'll be able to run long horizontal stages without hitting a shear.

Fracking in the UK is pretty much wishful thinking at the moment, there's barely even been any exploratory drilling (stopped because of resulting problems) but the government is going all out predicting the size of the industry and how cheap the gas will be and all the economic benefits it will surely bring. Also major political figures (including the Chancellor's father in law) are lobbyists for or have a direct business interest in the industry. Purely a coincidence

# ? Aug 28, 2013 19:52

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

Has anyone mentioned ocean acidification in this thread?

My lab is heavily involved in ocean acidification research, and it scares the poo poo out of me much more than any other global warming effect.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 03:52

Protagorean: May 19, 2013; by Azathoth

Barnsy posted:

Has anyone mentioned ocean acidification in this thread?

My lab is heavily involved in ocean acidification research, and it scares the poo poo out of me much more than any other global warming effect.

Read the OP hoss.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 04:04

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

Ah yes, saw it at the very end.

Not nearly alarmed enough in my opinion. Forget shelled organisms entirely, the worry is the water chemistry itself affecting stuff like sperm motility.

A lot of research is starting to show that increased pH from ocean acidification results in much lower sperm motility, which amounts to a lower fertility of organisms. This is a huge issue in the marine environment where 90% of animals depend on spawning reproduction. It'll also affect animals with internal fertilisation such as sharks.

While there's some research that shows that SOME individuals may actually have sperm that performs better at higher acidity, the majority likely don't.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 04:11

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

Which species are you referring to?

# ? Aug 29, 2013 07:51

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

The species that were studied for sperm motility are generally echinoderms (because you can easily get them to spawn with a potassium injection). There's no reason to believe that sperm motility wouldn't be affected in similar ways in other taxa. I think similar work has been done with crustaceans and other marine invertebrates.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 08:01

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

That's not good.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 08:11

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

Paper Mac posted:

That's not good.

Understatement of the century.

But yes, because I'm a marine person I'm very worried about overfishing as it is. But that's a tiny problem compared to ocean acidification.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 08:57

Bizarro Watt: May 30, 2010; My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

Barnsy posted:

Understatement of the century.

But yes, because I'm a marine person I'm very worried about overfishing as it is. But that's a tiny problem compared to ocean acidification.

Even though I know you're simply stating it relative to ocean acidification, I'd be very careful about ever putting "overfishing" and "tiny problem" together, considering the lack of attention it gets.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 19:07

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

I mean it's a tiny problem because it's so frustratingly simple to fix (you fish less).

Don't get me started on what the loss of predatory sharks is going to do to the world's oceans! And the fishing subsidies for fisheries that are already way overfished :psyboom:

# ? Aug 29, 2013 23:39

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Barnsy posted:

Don't get me started on what the loss of predatory sharks is going to do to the world's oceans!

What is the loss of predatory sharks going do to the world's oceans?

(Is it bad? Do we even want to know?)

# ? Aug 30, 2013 04:34

BONUS ROUND: Feb 9, 2007

After hearing about Near Term Extinction and then reading a lot of articles about Global Warming and Climate Change and finally ending up here I am sufficiently freaked out to the point of suffering a major anxiety attack continuously for the past 8 hours. With no end in sight. Is there any hopeful news to tell me? Is going to work tomorrow ultimately pointless? Please somebody hold me

# ? Aug 30, 2013 04:46

Scald: May 5, 2008; Can't post for 26 years!

BONUS ROUND posted:

After hearing about Near Term Extinction and then reading a lot of articles about Global Warming and Climate Change and finally ending up here I am sufficiently freaked out to the point of suffering a major anxiety attack continuously for the past 8 hours. With no end in sight. Is there any hopeful news to tell me? Is going to work tomorrow ultimately pointless? Please somebody hold me

It won't matter within your lifetime, don't have kids and you can rest easy.

# ? Aug 30, 2013 04:57

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

BONUS ROUND posted:

After hearing about Near Term Extinction and then reading a lot of articles about Global Warming and Climate Change and finally ending up here I am sufficiently freaked out to the point of suffering a major anxiety attack continuously for the past 8 hours. With no end in sight. Is there any hopeful news to tell me? Is going to work tomorrow ultimately pointless? Please somebody hold me

The actual future as it will turn out is almost completely unknown. Remember: All of the predictions being given aren't from a crystal ball, but from extrapolations based off of computer models that attempt to simplify a highly complex system down into a computational form. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be concerned over what is happening globally, but that creating some fictitious, horrible scenario in our minds where everything collapses isn't realistic given the uncertainty of what will actually happen. Frankly, this sort of daydreaming only paralyzes both thought and action, since the problem becomes insurmountably huge and seemingly inevitable; we become tempted to throw our hands up in the air and walk away from the matter entirely.

# ? Aug 30, 2013 04:57

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

enraged_camel posted:

What is the loss of predatory sharks going do to the world's oceans?

(Is it bad? Do we even want to know?)

Large-scale trophic cascade effects. Effectively the food web goes ape poo poo because there's no more apex predator regulation. We've already seen this on a larger scale in the Chesapeake bay, where a complete depletion of hammerhead sharks caused an explosion in cownose eagle rays, which caused the collapse of a shellfish fishery.

There are also a few recent studies that have found similar cascades starting to appear in the Atlantic and Mediterranean: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5820/1846.short

So yeah, 'not good' is once again putting it lightly. The running dark humour in the sector has been that we'll be eating jellyfish burgers in the future because of completely destroying the ecosystems through overfishing, but now recent studies have found that jellyfish populations are unlikely to boom because they depend on environmental factors. So even a bad joke has turned sour...

Barnsy fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Aug 30, 2013

# ? Aug 30, 2013 07:17

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

Its cool, aquaculture will save the tastiest fish, maybe.

# ? Aug 30, 2013 07:21

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

Paper Mac posted:

Its cool, aquaculture will save the tastiest fish, maybe.

Except where does all the fishmeal come from for aquaculture? The ocean. So no, it won't save anything. Eating the fish directly would be much more efficient (generally stuff in low demand like sardines, even though they taste fantastic on the bbq). In theory it's more efficient than catching the same fish in the wild (optimum growth), but still worse than properly maintaining stocks.

# ? Aug 30, 2013 07:23

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

Barnsy posted:

Except where does all the fishmeal come from for aquaculture? The ocean. So no, it won't save anything. Eating the fish directly would be much more efficient (generally stuff in low demand like sardines, even though they taste fantastic on the bbq). In theory it's more efficient than catching the same fish in the wild (optimum growth), but still worse than properly maintaining stocks.

Barnsy, Tilapia and Catfish are tasty as hell when seasoned properly, and can be fed with duckweed. Trust me, you're going to love the future of fish, if you can live long enough to get to a recirculating aquaculture facility after the riots start.

# ? Aug 30, 2013 07:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 15:06

Barnsy: Jul 22, 2013

Paper Mac posted:

Barnsy, Tilapia and Catfish are tasty as hell when seasoned properly, and can be fed with duckweed. Trust me, you're going to love the future of fish, if you can live long enough to get to a recirculating aquaculture facility after the riots start.

Freshwater aquaculture is the exception. I was making reference to marine stuff (i.e. salmon).

And you don't have to convince me about tilapia, I think 90% of fish tastes awesome.

# ? Aug 30, 2013 07:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

«‹›260 »