|
Ahahahahahaha.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
"Prepared" is the wrong word. Let's put it this way: In North Carolina, its illegal to study the ocean rise from global warming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Hi I'm just now learning about this, are we as a people prepared for the changes? Yeah everything is going to be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Hi I'm just now learning about this, are we as a people prepared for the changes? If you want a summary of the thread so far just read the thread title.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Prepared" is the wrong word.  Anything to avoid scaring people or hurt corporate profit margins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:
To be fair, a more accurate wording would be "illegal for the government to propose legislation based on a particular prediction of sea rise rate". It's still retarded but its not illegal to study it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:To be fair, a more accurate wording would be "illegal for the government to propose legislation based on a particular prediction of sea rise rate". It's still retarded but its not illegal to study it. So you can study it all you want, but you can't use what you find to make changes? That somehow feels worse..haha.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:So you can study it all you want, but you can't use what you find to make changes? Yeah, sadly for idiot states, most of what they can do is adaptation. So North Carolina & Florida aren't even stopping Big-Bad-Climate-Laws with their nonsense, all they're doing is stopping new seawalls. Basically sticking their head in the sand, below the new high water mark....
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
A seawall ain't gonna do poo poo to save South Florida. Especially hilarious considering I saw some article on insane housing prices in the big cities (London, NYC, San Fran, Vancouver) predicting that Miami was the next new hot thing. Enjoy that poo poo in 60 years you fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
How are u posted:A seawall ain't gonna do poo poo to save South Florida. People who are after the "next new hot thing" don't care about a 60-year timeframe. They're typically looking to buy, sit on it for a few years and flip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:People who are after the "next new hot thing" don't care about a 60-year timeframe. They're typically looking to buy, sit on it for a few years and flip. I understand that. It is just crazy reading about the insane building boom going on in Miami right now when there is absolutely no question that in less than a century that part of the world is going to be essentially uninhabitable on a scale larger than say a couple of swamp huts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And BMW uses the car speakers to make fake engine noises. Ford does this on the newer Mustang as well, so that mustang buyers can live up to their childhood dream of having a car that makes its own vroom vroom noises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
How are u posted:I understand that. It is just crazy reading about the insane building boom going on in Miami right now when there is absolutely no question that in less than a century that part of the world is going to be essentially uninhabitable on a scale larger than say a couple of swamp huts. It's not insane at all, if you happen to own a lot of land in Miami and want to unload it before property values go undewater. You know that making Miami "the next hot new thing" is almost certainly a deliberate move, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I'm sure we'll just instead spend huge amounts of money to make Miami livable below sea-level, while underfunding adaption in poorer communities instead. The system works!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Here's an interesting perspective on the umbrella under which our ills fall. Think of "use value" as "utility" and "exchange value" as "perceived value" when Thanaticism gets defined.McKenzie Wark posted:Bill McKibben has suggested that climate scientists should go on strike. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its 2013 report recently. It basically says what the last one said, with a bit more evidence, more detail, and worse projections. And still nothing much seems to be happening to stop Thanaticism. Why issue another report? It is not the science, it’s the political science that’s failed. Or maybe the political economy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Climate models may be wrong! gently caress yes! Don't worry guys, everything's going to be... quote:Climate scientists may need to revise their predictions: instead of acting as carbon sinks, Earth’s northern boreal forests could start releasing carbon at a faster rate than they can capture it. quote:Ryan Kelly, an ecosystem modeller at the environmental consulting firm Neptune and Company, and his colleagues had previously analysed charcoal deposited in sediments to show that the modern wildfires there are more severe than at any time since the end of the last ice age. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Climate models may be wrong! It seems from the article linked, those are changes to the way certain forests are modeled and seems unlikely to change, say the scope of IPCC reports or other conclusions with uncertainties baked in. But this process of refinement is part of what makes science seem *wrong* to many conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It seems from the article linked, those are changes to the way certain forests are modeled and seems unlikely to change, say the scope of IPCC reports or other conclusions with uncertainties baked in. Whoa whoa, you're telling me you can't just come to a conclusion once and be right about it forever? That doesn't seem right
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Vox reports again on what it would take to stay below 2°C taking into account all the latest climate pledges. (see thread title)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Vox reports again on what it would take to stay below 2°C taking into account all the latest climate pledges. (see thread title) I think the last part of that article has the point that often gets lost in the rabble: quote:Now, as I've noted before, even if we do bust through the 2°C limit, that would hardly mean it's time to abandon all hope. Because the risks and damages from global warming go up significantly the higher that temperatures rise, even 2.5°C warming is still preferable to 3°C, which is better than 4°C, which is way better than 5°C. There's never going to be a point when it's time to just give up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think the last part of that article has the point that often gets lost in the rabble: Please, this thread is for goons to justify their crushing depression and nihilism. No optimism allowed, even though we are living in the most prosperous period of human history and all these problems are absolutely solvable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:No optimism allowed, even though we are living in the most prosperous period of human history and all these problems are absolutely solvable if you're a wealthy first-world nation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
nah, actually I don't think any first world nation can address climate change. however it is well within the capacity of the world to address it. Thus the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Yeah that last paragraph applies to you if you're a 1st worlder. So many people in so many developing and poor countries are just utterly hosed. We are going to lose a billion (billions?) people before we find some sort of equilibrium. And who knows how long that will take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
How are u posted:We are going to lose a billion (billions?) people before we find some sort of equilibrium. That's far from certain, as that article even points out, <2C is still a possibility. Which is rather incredible when you think about our recklessness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's far from certain, as that article even points out, <2C is still a possibility. Which is rather incredible when you think about our recklessness. The problem is that that possibility is decreasing at an astonishing rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
That prediction is roughly as ridiculous as the population bomb. No food aid to India guys, they'll just breed more and starve even harder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
I can't see any way in which the political situation of the modern world could possibly lead to anything even approaching something as low as 2C. Sure it's physically possible, but it's a complete and utter political impossibility, and that's what really matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I can't see any way in which the political situation of the modern world could possibly lead to anything even approaching something as low as 2C. Sure it's physically possible, but it's a complete and utter political impossibility, and that's what really matters. But the difference is political possibilities can be changed easier than physical ones. What was politically impossible 5-10 years ago has become reality. We have a large gulf to cross to get us to an adaptable future, but the world has seen vast political shifts in short time periods (and that's ignoring the vastly increased rate of change). The wunderkin have a few more inflection points, then yes, some more brutal balancing mechanisms will come into play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
We're dealing with the speed of bureaucracy. They won't even decide to acknowledge the problem exists until at least 3 C. Then we'll have to spend a decade or so forming groups to authorize studies then another group to decide how they should be formatted. Give it a year or two and they'll have cover pages sorted out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
It seems like every little bit would help? I'm still fairly optimistic at people's chance of survival of this, and mitigation to some extent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:We're dealing with the speed of bureaucracy. They won't even decide to acknowledge the problem exists until at least 3 C. Except you're already behind the times on that. The bureaucracies of the world all already have declared it a problem worth dealing with and while none of them have committed or done enough, they're far beyond acknowledging the problem exists. ToxicSlurpee posted:Then we'll have to spend a decade or so forming groups to authorize studies then another group to decide how they should be formatted. Give it a year or two and they'll have cover pages sorted out. I mean you can mock the IPCC process, but the fact they're able to come to the kinds of consensus they do is actually pretty amazing. I can't think of another example of consensus building on such a contentious and evolving scientific issue. Can you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:We're dealing with the speed of bureaucracy. They won't even decide to acknowledge the problem exists until at least 3 C. Then we'll have to spend a decade or so forming groups to authorize studies then another group to decide how they should be formatted. Give it a year or two and they'll have cover pages sorted out. Considering Exxon (IIRC) had concrete evidence of this in the 70s, I'm forced to agree with a Toxic Slurpee. Bureaucracy is glacially slow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Considering Exxon (IIRC) had concrete evidence of this in the 70s, I'm forced to agree with a Toxic Slurpee. Bureaucracy is glacially slow. That's pretty much the problem; people know. It isn't exactly hidden. It's common knowledge at this point and there is consensus from the global scientific community that this rock is heating up. But there is money to be made and political points to score tying the response up in red tape and there are disagreements on exactly how to proceed from here. Aside from that you have ludicrously poor nations and people that would like to be less ludicrously poor, thank you very much, so they're all about burning coal for power starting like...yesterday. Then there's issues like figuring out how to convince Americans to quit slobbering all over the auto industry's dick. Americans have a bizarre love affair with cars and hate mass transit. Americans also associate any electric or hybrid car with dirty hippies who refuse to get jobs. Which is another thing...this idea that everybody must work to survive means even more driving. Part of the reason the bureaucracy is so slow is because this involves making changes and sacrifices a lot of people don't want to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
The kind of changes we need to make as a civilization in order to mitigate global warming are akin to the transition from pre to post industrialization. They are massive and revolutionary and will require a reworking of society in a way seen only twice before. I fully believe we will achieve it, but I don't see us doing it before a poo poo load of people are hosed and dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
How are u posted:The kind of changes we need to make as a civilization in order to mitigate global warming are akin to the transition from pre to post industrialization. They are massive and revolutionary and will require a reworking of society in a way seen only twice before. I fully believe we will achieve it, but I don't see us doing it before a poo poo load of people are hosed and dead. Progress cannot happen without heaps of bodies, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Progress cannot happen without heaps of bodies, apparently. Bodies aren't necessary for progress, it's just that we have our heads too far up our own asses right now to make the meaningful and necessary changes within a timeframe that will prevent a gently caress load of people dying down the road a few years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
How are u posted:Bodies aren't necessary for progress, it's just that we have our heads too far up our own asses right now to make the meaningful and necessary changes within a timeframe that will prevent a gently caress load of people dying down the road a few years. That is what I meant. Nobody cares until the cost hits them personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That is what I meant. Nobody cares until the cost hits them personally. And even then not until it's a catastrophic, major hit. The little signs are absolutely everywhere but people make excuses for them or handwave them away as "not that bad." That or put the blame where it doesn't belong. I still remember 2009 when the pumpkin crop failed and it looks like it's happening again this year. Illinois is just getting wetter which is very bad for growing pumpkins. I had to explain all day, every day that we got all the pumpkin we could, nobody had any, and we couldn't get any and no I won't check in the back, I'm serious, we don't freaking have any pumpkin. It looks like global warming is a component of it, if not outright the cause, but all people do is blame the store.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:18 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Progress cannot happen without heaps of bodies, apparently. As long as they are not white bodies...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:46
|
|