|
a lovely poster posted:Yes, I realize how food chains work. I am questioning the magnitude and speed of such a change. Thats great and all but you haven't really made any effort to support your Pollyannaish hopes besides just asking questions, while demanding everyone else show their work. (Also, I agree with you that the Stinky Oceans seems unlikely) And on that note. Here is a large collaborative report I found on the various possible scenarios on 21st century change in biodiversity, not just marine. The base line assumptions tend to be warming of 2-6 degrees C, with 3-8 degrees in Arctic temperatures. Estimates range from optimistic, discussed as maintaining a holding pattern on species die off, to unoptimistic, often described as "dramatic change". One of the more worrying bits that popped out while reading this was the discussion on the feedback loops as carbon-shell forming diatoms begin dieing off. These species are actually important in carbon sequestration. While many diatoms are eaten by other species and move up the food chain, an important fraction of their corpses sink to the bottom of the ocean, sequestering their carbon. When the ocean is too acidic, and we lose this portion of the ocean's phytoplankton, thats more carbon staying in the atmosphere. The most certain predictions are with regards to arctic biodiversity, which predicts mass extinction due to the combined effects of warmer temperatures, ocean acidification, and invasion of subarctic species as they flee warmer water themselves. Another paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B would support this, referring to already well documented expansions and contractions of species borders in response to climate change. The paper notes only tenuous links at times to twenty species being driven to extinction because of climate change, but also notes quote:However, there is abundant evidence for local extinctions from contractions at the warm edges of species' ranges. A pattern of range shifts (generally polewards and upwards) has been documented in hundreds of species of plants and animals, and is one of the strongest signals of biotic change from global warming. These shifts result from two processes: cold-edge expansions and warm-edge contractions. The researches also conducted a survey of local extinctions to identify proximate causes (where they could, as they admit few studies are able to identify proximate causes, leaving them with a low sample size). Rarely (when identified) are the local extinctions caused by direct temperature intolerance and warmer temperatures. The proximate causes most often identified are changing interspecific interactions, "[s]pecifically, changes in biotic interactions leading to reduced food availability are the single most common proximate factor." That said, though most local extinctions cannot have proximate causes linked with climactic oscillations and temperature change directly, they note that coral bleaching is directly linked to these, and corals undoubtedly tend to be keystone species in their ecologies. Also, I've been reading through a shorter (though with less pretty sidebars and figures) review published in Science, put together by the Pereira group who authored the huge report above. In the intro they note that while species extinction is irreversible and thus more commonly cited as the issue, that "extinctions have weak links to ecosystem services and respond less rapidly to global change than other metrics (e.g. the range of a species can decline shortly after habitat change but that species may not become extinct as a result)." So indeed, these population contractions (and in some cases expansion, including invasive species which will have further consequences) are perhaps more worrisome than the later extinctions, as they happen faster and will impact us more directly, even if the species does not become extinct. Meaning Biodiversity loss, though a problem, isn't the only devil coming down the pipeline. Habitat loss, in particular, is going to be particularly nasty. If you refer to my post earlier citing the Census of Marine Life, the biodiversity hotspots and habitat of choice for bulk of species are the coral reefs. Most temperature change estimates I've seen range from 2 degrees C to 6 degrees C. This review from the Pereira group notes quote:Tropical corals are vulnerable to climate change because increases in sea surface temperature of 1 degree Celsius for more than eight weeks can lead to severe coral bleaching, with the breakdown of the endosymbiosis between corals and zooxanthellae. Phenomenological models applied to climate change projections foresee that severe tropical coral bleaching may occur on average every two years by 2050. In addition, ocean acidification reduces the availability of carbonate for calcification, slowing the growth of corals, and along with bleaching and other stressors, is projected to lead to widespread degradation of coral reefs and ecosystem services they provide such as fisheries, storm surge protection and income from tourism. Finally, despite all of this Sturm und Drung, the review does leave room for a tiny ounce of hope with some proposed changes which would mitigate much of these effects. Unfortunately, those proposed changes are the same ones we always hear about, and which human and political pressures are going to render nigh impossible. Things like no more new fisheries, reduced deforestation, reduction in agricultural run off, an end to fishing practices like trawling, etc. Many of these (needed) changes have been obvious for some time, but the political will just isn't there. Whether its going to be there before the damage is well and done seems to me to be unlikely. Edit: For anyone interested in seeing what range contractions and expansions due to climate change can look like in the data set, a semi-longish but enlightening read was published back in 2002 that highlights this. George Divoky's Planet Yiggy fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Dec 20, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
i am harry posted:Having a little baby and thinking about the downhill process that has accelerated over the last 30 years of life isn't something that's easily removed from one's mind. Where will we be when she's 30? How much worse will it all be when I'm a grandfather? That we can unequivocally state it will be worse, without being able to quantify how much worse it will be is inescapable. Turning the news off I switch to a show like Futurescapes, and the depressed nature of my outlook does not improve (though that may be attributed to James Woods exposure). My mind reels at the joy of being alive at a time when so much science fiction is becoming real, but there is a deep sorrow that is only enhanced by livng in a tiny town in Louisiana surrounded by at least 5 petrochemical plants. Cipramil works for me. Seriously bro. You can't be effective as a father and a fighter whilst paralysed with fear about the future. Get that poo poo sorted out, chemically if need be (seriously, it works) , and then do something about that hosed up future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
tmfool posted:I guess it was news in 2010. Here's a link from 2011 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/ tmfool posted:Also stumbled upon this while coming across that link from above. Curious to see what people have to say about this since, gently caress. I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
tmfool posted:Also stumbled upon this while coming across that link from above. Curious to see what people have to say about this since, gently caress. I don't know. Polynomial curve fitting means "find an equation ax^n + bx^(n-1) + ... + constant that happens to go through all those points", e.g. a quadratic or a cubic one you might see in high school calculus; the operative part being "that happens to go through all those points". Since your curve is only fitted to existing data and probably doesn't have anything to do with the underlying mechanisms, extrapolating it beyond your dataset makes no sense at all (case in point: polynomials will trend towards infinity or negative infinity, which is complete and utter bullshit in any real context). suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 13:09
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Theres been a lot of talk about despair and realism verses hope and fantasy in this thread. I usually fall in to the former camp.I've been listening to a lot of Chris Hedges' speeches recently and they've opened up a lot more philosophical options. He thinks, and this is very simplified of course, we should fight even though we know theres almost no hope of victory. Its the only moral stance to take. As he quotes for someone else,who I've forgotten unfortunately, "I dont fight fascists because I think we'll win, I fight them because they are fascists." That should be our attitude when fighting the "forces" destroying the environment. Saying "gently caress it, i'll grow my own food" is not enough. We all must as individuals do what we can , and that means everything we can, to fight. Hedges btw thinks we are doomed, but we still must fight. Here's a recent and particularly beautiful speech of his. You can tell he grew up listening to his father,who was a liberal protestant minister. His cadence reminds me of a favourite old priest of mine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNT3_qugjZU edit: Im fully admit to doing nothing to join the fight, but if i had the energy and will to create a garden or horde gold, Id like to think I'd perform acts of civil disobedience instead. bpower fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Dec 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
I would like to suggest some things about the "fight" mentality. How exactly do you plan to do that? Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship to Democracy" (FDTD) seems a pretty good resource to me. It is about non-violent change. One of the things that he suggests is that most models of "fight" are a replication of the system of oppression. Not only do they add energy to that model, but most actions from within that go up against the point in the system where there is the most strength. Another implication in both Sharp and places like Freire is that both benevolent acts and resistance while still identified with and benefitting from the system of oppression are inauthentic and reinforce the resisted system. Take a simple, simple example of how this functions in practice in terms of the relationship between identification, structures, patterns, interpretation of events and behavior. The 'car' is easy to work with. You have a car. You use it and consider it necessary to your life, let's say. You benefit from its use and on a daily basis delete the consequences of that system of benefit and privilege. In the consumer model you relate to your ability to consume as an expression of freedom. The car becomes an expression of freedom. So you are driving around in and on an infrastructure built to enable all that. What do you see? Roads and parking lots are things that enable your freedom. If your use of those is curtailed you are offended and probably angry at someone in the first instance. The infrastructure allows you access to participation in the globalized consumer model and is part of that model. It is seemingly necessary to your life and life without it seems barren and impossible. Threats to it are threats to you. It is full on identification. "Where are you parked?" "I am parked over there?" Remove the car, just as a thought model. Now what do you see? The infrastructure becomes burnt earth. Many things seems impossible in your model of how time and space are partitioned. It is inefficient with respect to your assumed model and identification. The system of benefit and privilege is violated. That you would fight tooth and nail. In the model of 'car' as an asserted necessity it seems like so much is impossible without it. What is actively and strategically deleted (in order to maintain participation in a system of privilege) is all the consequences and the things that are made impossible by that model. The consequences are clear locally and globally in a variety of systems including economic, environmental and social. Community is de-localized and alienated for example. It is self reinforcing while we are identified with and perpetuating a false necessity. The consciousness of time and space and how we are together in that are conditioned by the means of production, which include such things as the car. The system of valuation becomes alienated from an economy that is in any way related to the biosphere or closed thermodynamic system in which we live and of which we are a part. This is just using the simple example of a car. There are like examples across systems of food, transportation, built environment, waste, energy, water, media, etc. The implications of the anthropocenic is that the means of production and identification with self as consumer is now effecting the planetary systems at the same scale as those systems themselves. The phenomena we categorize as climate are only one aspect of this. We divide and categorize the world according to such a model and pretend that such a categorization is objectively the case, rather than a social production. Until you begin to dissolve such identification you cannot even begin to consider which actions constituting resistance, subversion, change, etc. are remotely appropriate or not. If you are able to make some progress in the dissolution of such an inherited or strategic identification you then need some clarity about a change model and the dynamics of that. All of this is very hard to do or even encounter 'alone'. This is why community and community building is one of the most important places to start. Again, this is about the status of the minority of people on the planet actively identified with such a model, benefitting or imagining benefitting from such a model at the direct cost to the majority of people, life systems and environmental integrity of the planet. A different sort of action and model are implied elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
bpower posted:Theres been a lot of talk about despair and realism verses hope and fantasy in this thread. I usually fall in to the former camp.I've been listening to a lot of Chris Hedges' speeches recently and they've opened up a lot more philosophical options. He thinks, and this is very simplified of course, we should fight even though we know theres almost no hope of victory. Its the only moral stance to take. As he quotes for someone else,who I've forgotten unfortunately, "I dont fight fascists because I think we'll win, I fight them because they are fascists." That should be our attitude when fighting the "forces" destroying the environment. Saying "gently caress it, i'll grow my own food" is not enough. We all must as individuals do what we can , and that means everything we can, to fight. Hedges btw thinks we are doomed, but we still must fight. Most people value the short term over the long term and they are unwilling to make sacrifices in the former for gains in the latter. This has been demonstrated with plenty of studies and experiments. My theory is that this is why we are ultimately hosed on the climate change front. Climate change is something in which we need to make sacrifices in our current lifestyles in order to prevent catastrophe in the future. It's essentially a problem that will get worse due to the very nature of humans. What I'm curious about is whether there might be a significant overlap between climate change deniers (I call them the NFG crowd, as in "No Fucks Given") and other short-term thinkers such as:
This would be trivial to test using randomized surveys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Most people value the short term over the long term and they are unwilling to make sacrifices in the former for gains in the latter. This has been demonstrated with plenty of studies and experiments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Nah, human. America might be the poster child for this kind of short-term thinking but it can hardly stake its claim as the originator of it - a strong promoter certainly, but even without the Reagan Revolution I doubt we would be in a much different situation now. The scope of the problem is just so ridiculously massive. Hey, look - another "major" storm knocking out power to 350,000+ in Southern Ontario alone currently. Really, that word with regards to severe weather is going to quickly lose all meaning in the next few years I believe. Out of my balcony now - that ain't snow on those trees (and I'm one of the lucky ones, this is nothing):  Many will be without power for 72 hours, some may extend past Christmas. Just a few days of freezing rain, and the winds haven't really picked up yet - that's apparently coming. The popular mainstream narrative of "sea level rise" as being the main threat of CC really has to die. It seems it's the most comforting to the west as it will affect regions of the world far earlier than most of us, but the true threats are far more immediate that don't depend on that at all. Massive oceanic species die-off which is well underway, hugely unpredictable weather with severe financial strains on a system already held together with wishes and duct tape, migrating diseases, severe resource shortages (look at that one flood in Taiwan did for years of computer component prices) etc. It still seems to me that even amongst the populace that actually believes in Climate Change, their understanding of its impacts consists largely of "Welp, gotta find higher ground in 50 years, shame about the Maldives". Nice ("nice" as in modbidly depressing but honest) speech by Hedges btw, thanks for the link. The comments...why, why do I always have to read the loving comments. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:hugely unpredictable weather with severe financial strains on a system already held together with wishes and duct tape My hometown has a Mediterranean climate, which is fairly moderate year around. Over the last few years though, the weather has been quite unpredictable with wild up-down swings. Last week it was below 32F, which caused many temperate-climate fruits (esp. citrus) to freeze and perish. Next week it's going to be in the 70s, and many people are worried that it will cause trees to bloom -- in December! Things aren't looking good for a region that's primarily agriculture-dependent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
"Major" snowstorms out east. Once-in-a-century snowfalls in Calgary. An entire month without rain in Vancouver. One-in-five-hundred-years flooding in Alberta last spring. I think the only thing that will wake people up is if these events start happening closer and closer in frequency. To me, this year has been worryingly erratic across the country. The terrifying thing is that we are 14 years into this century and things are only going to get much much worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Why are you guys acting so scared? Is this the "tell each other ghost stories about climate apocalypse" thread? The world is changing, poo poo is going to be crazy, get used to it. Millions will die. But millions already have been dying, so what is it that makes you so terrified? Is it that you're not sure which millions will die this time? Just go enjoy yourself in the weather you have, as long as the wind isn't picking stuff up and throwing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why are you guys acting so scared? Is this the "tell each other ghost stories about climate apocalypse" thread? The world is changing, poo poo is going to be crazy, get used to it. Millions will die. But millions already have been dying, so what is it that makes you so terrified? Is it that you're not sure which millions will die this time? Solider on, you rugged individualist. edit: Should have heeded the custom title. That's an impressive rap sheet for a span of less than a year, apparently it's possible to dedicate yourself unwaveringly to nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:"Things have been poo poo before in recorded history, so don't worry about poo poo becoming much, much worse to a much, much larger group of people in a significantly shortened timeframe". No I literally asked why people are acting so scared. There's bad stuff coming for sure, but the stink of helplessness is unappealing. The people dying in climate wars right now manage to sound less helpless and panicky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No I literally asked why people are acting so scared. There's bad stuff coming for sure, but the stink of helplessness is unappealing. The people dying in climate wars right now manage to sound less helpless and panicky. As for me, I've already done most of what I can do. I'm well aware of what's coming, I donate semi-regularly to organizations like 350.org, and I go to climate rallies when I can. Panicking is really the only other thing I can do right now. EDIT: The high today in Washington, DC is 69 F. This is December, and probably some sort of record.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No I literally asked why people are acting so scared. There's bad stuff coming for sure, but the stink of helplessness is unappealing. I understand that Perpetual Hope is our drug and most of us need it to get through the day, but lamenting that there's a general feeling of malaise in a thread that's going into detail about largely inevitable mass extinction events is pretty ridiculous. Sure, some here are discussing potential solutions whereas some are hand-waving the threat away because they're basically nihilists, but if you're thinking that any real form of solution is centered around things like carbon sequestration or Thorium reactors in 20 years time, IMO you're delusional. Maybe you're not, but it's not like I have much to go from the content of your posts. So what exactly do you expect from this thread, btw? Actual solutions to the problem? What is the preponderance of that content in the majority of threads in D&D, let alone discussion of any loving topic in any medium? A lot of it is simple venting and rage distillation. I'm all for a lowering of the decibel level with regards to people conversing topics they have no idea about, but if there's any one topic that gets some leeway in regards to pure desk-pounding, goddamit this should be it. quote:The people dying in climate wars right now manage to sound less helpless and panicky. For the record, I don't think the complete destruction of civilization is inevitable, but unfortunately quite likely given the current state of the science, the political/economic system of the major polluters and basic human psychology. I'm not curled up in a ball making GBS threads myself because I made a few depressing posts on a climate change thread in a sub-forum of a comedy website for fucks sake. I'm very, very angry that the true scope of the problem isn't being screamed on front page headlines on a daily basis in every major publication. If I do have some optimism, it's that I believe anger and fear are prime motivators for human beings, and that the continual hope for a technological MacGuffin device or the predictable "We'll adapt!" is just as destructive, if not more so to hope than the attitude of "Welp we're hosed, time to spark a bowl". I can't accept that we're anywhere near where we should be amongst the general populace on the rage scale relative to the disingenuous reporting on this problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Ok, you find it "unappealing". And...? I think "unappealing" isn't a strong enough word. A stronger, more appropriate word might be "pathetic". When has helplessness ever been useful? Ever? Who here has been directly affected by global warming? I haven't. If I could have lived the previous thirty years and never heard of global warming, I would have no idea that anything was different at all, to be perfectly honest. And I'm a somewhat intelligent person who reads the news regularly. Imagine what somebody who doesn't watch the news and doesn't really give a poo poo about any of that stuff (that being quite a few people) feels about something that, up until this point, has had literally no impact on their daily lives. The fact of the matter is that until people feel themselves personally affected by global warming, in a way that can be clearly and directly traced to global warming, nothing will happen. Sorry. The reason why the environmentalist movement caught such fire in the 70s was that they were focusing on issues people could actually see and feel and directly connect to pollution--air quality, water quality. The average person, someone with no training or knowledge of these issues, can notice these things. Until global warming can produce similar effects (and, unfortunately, severe weather doesn't quite fit under this category, as it's too random and unpredictable), there will be no political will to solve it. TL;DR - Until the average, white, middle-class voter is directly affected by global warming, there will be no political will in the United States to solve it. I suppose most of us in this thread are probably not old enough to really have a sense of the sheer existential terror that our parents and grandparents lived through pretty much every day of their lives from around 1948 to 1990. I remember some older family members telling me that they cried themselves to sleep as teenagers for weeks at time from fear of nuclear war and the sudden and utter destruction of all human civilization. I've always suspected that this might be at the bottom of a lot of the baby boomers' (often irritating) refusal to take global warming seriously--compared to the threat of total nuclear destruction, global warming doesn't seem as bad. Not that it's an either/or situation, but you can see how a group of people can doom-and-gloom only so much before becoming sick of it. Also remember that when you talk about the death of civilization and the death of millions, these are not idle words. You're not talking about potentialities, you're talking about real people with real lives. People who will die. You can see why somebody might be turned off? I'm certainly turned off when a religious person talks of the billions who will die during the Apocalypse; people don't take kindly to you condemning them and their children to death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:As for me, I've already done most of what I can do. I'm well aware of what's coming, I donate semi-regularly to organizations like 350.org, and I go to climate rallies when I can. Panicking is really the only other thing I can do right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Nah, looks like it got ten degrees higher in 1998. In D.C. it's actually pretty normal to get some warm days in November/December. The winter weather tends to arrive in January through March.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
I'm seriously thinking we have the technology to mend at least some of these problems or will soon. I don't believe it's all doom and gloom, so long as we face reality. But the first step is overcoming denial and getting our poo poo together. As for there being 7 other steps, etc., that presupposes this is in fact a grieving process, and not adaptation. One sciffy author I've enjoyed because of the depth of his appreciation for the fact that these issues are real and that we can face them is Bruce Sterling. You all may enjoy "Heavy Weather." It addresses global climate change better than any science fiction novel I've read, personally. Haven't read all of them, though, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:"Things have been poo poo before in recorded history, so don't worry about poo poo becoming much, much worse to a much, much larger group of people in a significantly shortened timeframe". Be careful. If you give him too much poo poo, he's going to start harassing you via PMs like he tried with me. I suggest putting him on ignore and moving on (like half of this forum has probably done).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
etherealshaq posted:Who here has been directly affected by global warming? I haven't. etherealshaq posted:TL;DR - Until the average, white, middle-class voter is directly affected by global warming, there will be no political will in the United States to solve it. Have to admit I'm confused as to what you're arguing here, or if you just used my post as a jumping off point for your own musings on the topic in general. We should lie about the scope of the problem or not try to communicate it because people are inherently narcissistic and short sighted? How is that not the most lassie-faire attitude possible? I grant I may be misreading you and if so I apologize, but you seem to be critiquing those who are understandably depressed and worried about the severity of the problem but simultaneously seemingly hand-waving away any attempts to educate because hey, "people are stupid". All of that has little to do with discussing it on a thread dedicated to the topic however. We're partly at this desperate situation precisely because we haven't honestly confronted the degree of the impact, partly because most governments want to work within the laughably narrow framework of the current political and economic systems, and partly because our information is shat through corporate pipes which a direct interest in obfuscating the truth. I'll re-iterate what I said in the last post: The only hope we have to enact the degree of change to at least mitigate some of the disaster scenarios playing out is to talk as honestly as possible about the impact, as the degree of change has to match. I just don't believe people are anywhere near scared enough, they at least sure as gently caress aren't angry enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
SnakePlissken posted:I'm seriously thinking we have the technology to mend at least some of these problems or will soon. I don't believe it's all doom and gloom, so long as we face reality. But the first step is overcoming denial and getting our poo poo together. As for there being 7 other steps, etc., that presupposes this is in fact a grieving process, and not adaptation. This is part of the reason I want the public to be far more scared/angry, if there is hope it can only come from mobilizing the nations to address this as a global emergency and fight this as if it was WWIII against an invading alien force. We need a national effort that makes the space race look like a bunch of friends building a treetfort by comparison. That doesn't require propaganda, it requires an honest information campaign. And of course, looking at the current media avenues from which most people get their information...then I'm back into despair. But anger usually wins out for me, that at least gives motivation. Well that and Adderal. Welp on the bright side it's a pretty cool visuals out now at least, going to finally walk around and see if people need some help. drat though we didn't get the temps up enough today to really start any degree of melting, and it's looking like max's well below 0C for the majority of next week so this is going to be a long outage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:I guess little in NA if you believe the increased severity of large storm events such as Hurricane Sandy have nothing to do with CC - for some reason...? I guess I'm focusing less on individual action by individual people and more on large-scale action by major nations (specifically in this case the US). I just don't see that happening until a major swath of the population sees their life changing as a result of climate change. I'm thinking of things like rising food prices, rising energy costs, etc. Day-to-day stuff. I think if the price of gas went up by three or four dollars a gallon you'd see more action done in one year than in the previous ten. Granted, national change is made up of a lot of individual people... People have definitely been affected by climate change, but storms are too indirect. It's too easy for the purveyors of disinformation to write them off as once-in-a-lifetime occurrences. I definitely agree with what you say with our information being shat out by corporate pipes. Unfortunately what that means is that the well has been poisoned with a lot of climate change discussion, and a lot of people aren't going to want to do anything until it's staring them right in the face (through smaller paychecks + higher bills). Of course, by that moment it might be too late! That's what personally depresses me about all of this. I do honestly think that at some point, people will demand solutions to climate change, at that point it will be too late to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
etherealshaq posted:
As mentioned though, the development of even loving Reddit outright banning climate-change deniers from at least the science forum is maybe one small indication that the evidence is mounting so quickly that even amongst libertarian strongholds it's hard to deny. Now mapping that onto corporate media however is another story, but perhaps we might get there through the back-end of popular culture, such as films. 2013 was a banner year for apocalyptic entertainment, much of it centered around environmental collapse - just like 2012 was. I think this will only continue, it's just preposterous to even think of a sci-fi film being released in the near future that doesn't address climate change or have it as the central point of the plot. Basically it becomes a part of the zeitgeist thorough the method which many westerners likely get a good portion of their worldview; from entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Not exactly shocking of course: Conservative Groups Spend up to 1 Billion a Year to Fight Action on Climate Changequote:The vast majority of the 91 groups on Brulle's list – 79% – were registered as charitable organisations and enjoyed considerable tax breaks. Those 91 groups included trade organisations, think tanks and campaign groups. The groups collectively received more than $7bn over the eight years of Brulle's study – or about $900m a year from 2003 to 2010. Conservative think tanks and advocacy groups occupied the core of that effort. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
I don't know, something strange is definitely happening this winter. I mean I live in Northern Europe and this time we usually have snow and it can get pretty cold, but now it's been +6 C and rain for the most part, not counting a few days of snow which immediately melted. At the same time it's snowing in Egypt and Israel... It's depressing because winter is my favourite time of year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
A lot of northern weather is being affected by the jet stream being so wonky. A friend of mine works at a nationwide weather network, and she says the extremes in weather are usually following bulges in the southern loops of the jetstream. For instance, the ice storm someone just mentioned followed a loop that brought warm air from Texas up into an area that was followed by arctic air. Half an inch of freezing rain on everything, power goes out when trees hit powerlines. Yeah, at least in North America we're getting some big swings due to that. edit: There was a study published in Nature that apparently linked the two, but the jury is still out on whether the conclusion of the article - which attributed it to loss of sea ice - is really the answer, or if there's natural variability from ENSO or something similar. More study is needed, just don't expect any of the money for it to come from Canada! Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
So anecdotal evidence is ok if it supports the narrative of this thread, even though it is exactly as intellectually rigorous as 'if global warming is real then why is it cold'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
I think it's more that people are tired of reposting the same poo poo over and over again. It's well known that individual extreme weather events are impossible to link to climate change. At the same time it's another data point and it can help show a trend of more frequent and/or more powerful extreme weather events. I'm not aware of any study proving that is happening but I haven't read anything for a few months.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
satan!!! posted:So anecdotal evidence is ok if it supports the narrative of this thread, even though it is exactly as intellectually rigorous as 'if global warming is real then why is it cold'? Kafka Esq. posted:A lot of northern weather is being affected by the jet stream being so wonky. A friend of mine works at a nationwide weather network, and she says the extremes in weather are usually following bulges in the southern loops of the jetstream. That is not an anecdote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
To be fair, that was hearsay. The Nature article I mentioned was neither hearsay or an anecdote, and I fairly mentioned the controversy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Believe me, I'm latching onto any hope of a technological solution like a spergy lampray eel, I think geo-engineering is inevitable which is of course terrifying in its own right, but I believe some form will be attempted - just by what nation and when is the issue. The best thing that could happen for our future would be for oil to run dry globally sooner, rather then later. We already have a method of drawing atmospheric CO2 and changing it into methane or other hydrocarbons from that point on. It's really the same concept as taking in atmospheric N2 for use in fertilizers that was develop about a 100 years ago. "The Alchemy of Air" is a good book if you care to read up on the nitrogen/global starvation story. With current tech and a Thorium power base we literally can reverse C02 or more likely go carbon neutral right now. This will happen by default as soon as oil goes away anyways. It's the easiest power resource at hand that can cover our energy needs without significant retooling. Basically change out oil fields and refineries for Thorium plants near synthetic gas plants. Coal plants can work too, but you lose out on drawing C02 for the atmosphere for C02 from the coal plant. Audi is already making a go at this, but it'll be a wait an see if its too early. Like the synthetic gasoline story of the the 1920's no one will change unless there is a shortage to force it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPTjxW4dQEw It's our poo poo farming and fishing methods that need complete make overs. Those two industries are what is literally killing life around the entire planet. No climate change carbon laws are going to fix this either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Environmental catastrophe has been a reasonably common way to go out pretty much since civilisation got going, kind of goes with the territory. I generally get the feeling that people are less depressed about their own personal mortality than they are about the threat climate change poses to Western civilisational narratives that pretty much everyone is invested in one way or the other. To the extent that those narratives provide context and meaning for your life, it's natural to be depressed and even grieve, but at the same time there's the opportunity to come to terms with, say, Kierkegaard's question of "what endures" in a much deeper fashion than most humans ever get a chance to. This is a really silly way of looking at the problem. Modern technology isn't desirable because it's cathectic or symbolic of modernity or however you're formulating it - it's desirable because it provides real material benefit for people's lives in a way that does not reduce to "video games" or even consumer goods generally. Nor is it a sort of narrative charade - there is broad and deep skepticism about narratives of progress (environmentalism not least of all) but these are sublimated and prevented from gaining political power because of the necessity of technology for the maintenance and improvement of human life. In the core this means unprecedented material comfort and opportunity and in the periphery the promise thereof, and more importantly the potential to finally get rid of these exploitive systems you keep talking about (and, for that matter, the need to spend the vast majority of our lives in labor) for the first time since at least the invention of agriculture. The alternative paths don't offer solutions to these and can only promise, at best, a return to the conditions of the Upper Paleolithic (which is both a huge longshot and predicated on a mountain of human tragedy, much more likely we end up with just as much exploitation except without the material benefits). So I'd argue that it's both perfectly reasonable to be distressed in light of the threat to this and also rather insulting that you're going to psychoanalyze that distress as being wrapped up in myopic western narratives, of course people are going to tell you to gently caress off when your response is "read some Kierkegaard".
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is a really silly way of looking at the problem. Modern technology isn't desirable because it's cathectic or symbolic of modernity or however you're formulating it - it's desirable because it provides real material benefit for people's lives in a way that does not reduce to "video games" or even consumer goods generally. Nor is it a sort of narrative charade - there is broad and deep skepticism about narratives of progress (environmentalism not least of all) but these are sublimated and prevented from gaining political power because of the necessity of technology for the maintenance and improvement of human life. In the core this means unprecedented material comfort and opportunity and in the periphery the promise thereof, and more importantly the potential to finally get rid of these exploitive systems you keep talking about (and, for that matter, the need to spend the vast majority of our lives in labor) for the first time since at least the invention of agriculture. The alternative paths don't offer solutions to these and can only promise, at best, a return to the conditions of the Upper Paleolithic (which is both a huge longshot and predicated on a mountain of human tragedy, much more likely we end up with just as much exploitation except without the material benefits). So I'd argue that it's both perfectly reasonable to be distressed in light of the threat to this and also rather insulting that you're going to psychoanalyze that distress as being wrapped up in myopic western narratives, of course people are going to tell you to gently caress off when your response is "read some Kierkegaard". While I generally agree with what I think you are pointing to, it is not really possible to separate the tradition of Hellenistic thought (which includes the only positive existentialist Kierkegaard) from Science as such. It is also possible to consider consumerism as a product of materialism, which in turn is held in place by the assertion of a socially constructed epistemology as if it were not socially constructed, but rather a form of self evident, separately existing truth. These aren't all separate things, but rather a set of connected things that result in our current condition. In that condition there is really only a very small minority actively benefitting from the espoused benefits. Most are living in conditions very similar to those you say have been eliminated. The proposition that it is either this or the Bronze Age seems a false dichotomy to say the least and is the type of thinking produced by the model that when enacted at scale, as if self evident, is producing the conditions we now face. There are certainly alternatives. They are impossible to see when we are identified in the ways to which you are rightly pointing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Sogol posted:While I generally agree with what I think you are pointing to, it is not really possible to separate the tradition of Hellenistic thought (which includes the only positive existentialist Kierkegaard) from Science as such. It is also possible to consider consumerism as a product of materialism, which in turn is held in place by the assertion of a socially constructed epistemology as if it were not socially constructed, but rather a form of self evident, separately existing truth. These aren't all separate things, but rather a set of connected things that result in our current condition. In that condition there is really only a very small minority actively benefitting from the espoused benefits. Most are living in conditions very similar to those you say have been eliminated. The proposition that it is either this or the Bronze Age seems a false dichotomy to say the least and is the type of thinking produced by the model that when enacted at scale, as if self evident, is producing the conditions we now face. There are certainly alternatives. They are impossible to see when we are identified in the ways to which you are rightly pointing. I'm pretty sure Paper Mac would dispute you on that first point and I'm not really sure where I stand on either that or the second point. But more to the point, while I'd argue that to some extent the benefits of modern technology have been generalized my argument is much less to defend and legitimate the established order than to emphasize that societies with modern technology have a clear path to solving the problems of exploitation that other societies don't. Today it's possible for everyone on earth to both live securely and comfortably (and work a lot less than they do as well) given a new political arrangement, which can't be said of past societies and as far as I can see any future society without modern technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:11
|
|
Sogol posted:While I generally agree with what I think you are pointing to, it is not really possible to separate the tradition of Hellenistic thought (which includes the only positive existentialist Kierkegaard) from Science as such. It is also possible to consider consumerism as a product of materialism, which in turn is held in place by the assertion of a socially constructed epistemology as if it were not socially constructed, but rather a form of self evident, separately existing truth. These aren't all separate things, but rather a set of connected things that result in our current condition. In that condition there is really only a very small minority actively benefitting from the espoused benefits. Most are living in conditions very similar to those you say have been eliminated. The proposition that it is either this or the Bronze Age seems a false dichotomy to say the least and is the type of thinking produced by the model that when enacted at scale, as if self evident, is producing the conditions we now face. There are certainly alternatives. They are impossible to see when we are identified in the ways to which you are rightly pointing. There is actually a trichotomy - civilization, barbarism or extinction of humanity.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
McDowell posted:That is not an anecdote. Yes it is. Or rather, one incident of atypical jet-stream behavior is an anecdote. People do not have the perspective or perception to directly observe climate change up to this point, unless they live in the arctic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Yes it is. Or rather, one incident of atypical jet-stream behavior is an anecdote. People do not have the perspective or perception to directly observe climate change up to this point, unless they live in the arctic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is a really silly way of looking at the problem. Modern technology isn't desirable because it's cathectic or symbolic of modernity or however you're formulating it - it's desirable because it provides real material benefit for people's lives in a way that does not reduce to "video games" or even consumer goods generally. Nor is it a sort of narrative charade - there is broad and deep skepticism about narratives of progress (environmentalism not least of all) but these are sublimated and prevented from gaining political power because of the necessity of technology for the maintenance and improvement of human life. In the core this means unprecedented material comfort and opportunity and in the periphery the promise thereof, and more importantly the potential to finally get rid of these exploitive systems you keep talking about (and, for that matter, the need to spend the vast majority of our lives in labor) for the first time since at least the invention of agriculture. The alternative paths don't offer solutions to these and can only promise, at best, a return to the conditions of the Upper Paleolithic (which is both a huge longshot and predicated on a mountain of human tragedy, much more likely we end up with just as much exploitation except without the material benefits). So I'd argue that it's both perfectly reasonable to be distressed in light of the threat to this and also rather insulting that you're going to psychoanalyze that distress as being wrapped up in myopic western narratives, of course people are going to tell you to gently caress off when your response is "read some Kierkegaard". Modern technology isn't going anywhere. We're going to be consuming less energy, which means not a lot for the majority of the world that already consumes very little, and less luxury for the 5% of the world's population that consumes the majority of it. I've seen no compelling evidence that particular levels of energy consumption are associated with any potential to achieve social justice or whatever. People who are deeply depressed about climate change are very frequently dealing with the failure of civilisational narratives (which are neither myopic nor uniquely Western) which provided them with meaning and purpose. There are resources to deal with these problems both within Western and within other traditions of thought. I was an rear end in a top hat to that guy and I apologise for that, it was just annoying to me that he jumped down my throat for a comment that wasn't even specifically directed to him, and I responded poorly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:13
|
|
