|
We need a watery/flooding version of the melting "This is okay. I'm okay with this." dog cartoon.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Here's an idea: if you have the technology to create a clean recycling infrastructure that will support a biome indefinitely on a space voyage, how about you use it to colonize Earth? It's easier to pillage the planet to build a life support system for the space 0.01% than to fix a whole planet with things already on the planet. Maybe. Or something. I guess this would be something awful in the real world but who cares. Radbot posted:I get it, and I will vote against/sabotage this beepboop attempt at "continuing" humanity at any and every possibility. How can you possibly so dismissive of the opportunity to make The Wrath of KHAAAAAAAN happen irl? You monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 08:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:It's easier to pillage the planet to build a life support system for the space 0.01% than to fix a whole planet with things already on the planet. Maybe. Or something. I guess this would be something awful in the real world but who cares. Well if we only care about 0.01% of the population surviving, it's still going to be easier and cheaper to make provisions for them on a climate-hosed earth, even if that means going to Antarctica and blowing up any ship or more likely lovely raft that approaches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well if we only care about 0.01% of the population surviving, it's still going to be easier and cheaper to make provisions for them on a climate-hosed earth, even if that means going to Antarctica and blowing up any ship or more likely lovely raft that approaches. In this scenario the plan is to save the species from  )Basically it has nothing to do with climate change mitigation beyond needing a better understanding of ecosystem functioning to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Did Lamar Smith really file a subpoena for public domain data from NOAA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Meanwhile, on the East Coast... I'm not sure if you live in Charleston, but this has single-handedly paralyzed the city the past two days--not mention exacerbating the "1000 year rain event" we experienced in early Oct. Flooding has always been an issue here in place, but usually a rain/tide combo made it happen. Lockwood Blvd has been completely underwater and impassible the past two days during high tide. Living 500 yards from the water, I haven't experienced any flooding--but happen to be profoundly lucky. We are right and truly hosed down here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Did Lamar Smith really file a subpoena for public domain data from NOAA? No, he filed a subpoena for private e-mails surrounding the use of that data. Basically, Rep. Smith wants to create a new Climategate by demonstrating that climate scientists hate oil or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Obummer: [...] " [...] I [...] want to [...] give [...] contracts [...] for [...] solar panels [...] to [...] ISIS [...] to [...] eradicate [...] freedom and the American way of life [...] because [...] Big [...] Renewable [...] gave [...] me [...] money [...] . [...] Remember [...] you didn't build that"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Any gimmick papers floating around analyzing the effect of a nuclear war on climate change? Would a nuclear winter set back the clock on global warming a couple decades? Seems like something somebody should have looked at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Any gimmick papers floating around analyzing the effect of a nuclear war on climate change? Would a nuclear winter set back the clock on global warming a couple decades? Seems like something somebody should have looked at. Ah, the Futurama solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Generally speaking, plants need sunlight and predictable air temperatures to live and they would not do very well under a nuclear winter scenario. You can probably understand why this would be an issue for humanity as whole to deal with, even if we took average temps down a couple of degrees as a result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
"The world has too many humans! Overpopulation is the issue! All those overbreeding third worlders!" (Literally lives a lifestyle that consumes the equivalent annual resources of fifty people in Lagos) This whole issue is incredibly depressing. I got myself a career in urban planning to try and move policy (and politicians) towards the creation of higher density, walkable communities that are low carbon and easily accessible by transit. And then you read about people blithering on about electric cars and self driving vehicles, as if those totems to sustainability will have any real impact on our enormously wasteful land use patterns. Like, really, you think that the Walmart super centre off the interstate next to your spaghetti road suburb is even remotely sustainable or anything but a gross obscenity of the cavalier and perverse excess of the auto age? What kind of future do these people imagine? One where the only tangible difference your children and great grandchildren will face in their respective living environments is whether they have to plug in or physically drive their one-tonne hunk of steel that they use to zip from their 4,000 square foot single family home to The Cheesecake Factory after watching Next Week Tonight? Then I realize that it doesn't matter and I'm part of the problem just as much as they are. But then I figure, hey, I can try and be part of a solution. Because convincing local politicians to limit sprawl and encourage people to start living in mid-rise development within a revitalized downtown district near rapid transit lines and not using a car to get to that Best Buy is at least a step in the right direction. Not enough, not by a long shot mind you, but at least I could say I tried and have some sort of self validation from that. Because really, the only other best way to fix things from an individual perspective is to simply kill myself. And I'm not sure I have the stomach for that -- just yet, anyways. sitchensis fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Because really, the only other best way to fix things from an individual perspective is to simply kill myself. And I'm not sure I have the stomach for that -- just yet, anyways. Well no, murder suicide is more effective from a resource usage standpoint. Actually, based on density and economies of scale, mass imprisonment might be more effective too. Prisons don't commute prisoners one at a time in big SUVs after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well no, murder suicide is more effective from a resource usage standpoint. It depends on how close a state medical facility is, but there are quite a few transports of single prisoners in big rear end vans sometimes up to a few hours away for treatment. Seems more like a healthcare issue at that point, and centralizing everything etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:It depends on how close a state medical facility is, but there are quite a few transports of single prisoners in big rear end vans sometimes up to a few hours away for treatment. Seems more like a healthcare issue at that point, and centralizing everything etc. The book Climate Wars by Harald Welzer basically hints that mass, centralized bureaucratic violence on the level of the holocaust is a very real potential outcome as nations try to grapple with resource shortages and large migrant flows if nothing is done now to address the inequities that will be caused by climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:The book Climate Wars by Harald Welzer basically hints that mass, centralized bureaucratic violence on the level of the holocaust is a very real potential outcome as nations try to grapple with resource shortages and large migrant flows if nothing is done now to address the inequities that will be caused by climate change. "Sir, we only have enough food production to feed 80% of our population, even with the strictest rationing." "Well, start with the old.."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:The book Climate Wars by Harald Welzer basically hints that mass, centralized bureaucratic violence on the level of the holocaust is a very real potential outcome as nations try to grapple with resource shortages and large migrant flows if nothing is done now to address the inequities that will be caused by climate change. Bangladesh could possibly have 20 million climate refugees by 2050. The land is so low that only a foot or two of sea level rise will displace millions. Dhaka is already global ground zero for climate change refugees and today, right now, there are no jobs or housing for the millions that have already fled the lowlands. About 3 million people have fled Syria so far. Vast majority of them have gone to Turkey and Jordan, just a few hundred thousand are making their way to Europe. See the reaction of Europeans as a mere trickle of climate refugees ask for their help. What in the gently caress will India or China or (lol) loving Myanmar do when millions of people come knocking at the door with nowhere else to go and the survival of their families on the line? How are u fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Don't forget: Indonesia and its great forests are burning: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia-fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media?CMP=fb_gu
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Any gimmick papers floating around analyzing the effect of a nuclear war on climate change? Would a nuclear winter set back the clock on global warming a couple decades? Seems like something somebody should have looked at. Something like that was the premise of Snowpiercer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Any gimmick papers floating around analyzing the effect of a nuclear war on climate change? Would a nuclear winter set back the clock on global warming a couple decades? Seems like something somebody should have looked at. Read anything about energy policy published by that crackpot Jacobson. e: his line of argument is 1) nucular power is a thing 2) nucular war is a thing 3) nucular war will burn the entire world 4) ????????????? 5) co2 emissions from nucular power by burning the entire world = $Texas suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
How are u posted:Bangladesh could possibly have 20 million climate refugees by 2050. The land is so low that only a foot or two of sea level rise will displace millions. Dhaka is already global ground zero for climate change refugees and today, right now, there are no jobs or housing for the millions that have already fled the lowlands. About 3 million people have fled Syria so far. Vast majority of them have gone to Turkey and Jordan, just a few hundred thousand are making their way to Europe. See the reaction of Europeans as a mere trickle of climate refugees ask for their help. Europe's taking way more than a couple of hundred thousand refugees, Germany alone is predicting it'll take around a million refugees this year. And that's just Germany.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Read anything about energy policy published by that crackpot Jacobson. Mock Mark Jacobson all you want, but he is a respected climate scientist. He just wrote a few "what-if" papers, that a lot of people confuse as predictions. Like the paper you're mocking right now. You've clearly not read it closely, because it was an examination of the potential risks of proliferation, a real thing, and not nuclear power == nuclear bombs. But yeah, you found one paper you disagree with, therefor lets ignore all the other science he's done, because that's how science works, not examining the specific results. edit2: heck, I don't agree with Jacobson on a lot, a lot of things. In particular as the questions get farther away from "what would be awesome" and closer to "what can we actually get done, politically and economically" I disagree with him more and more. But it gets to me to see pro-climate people use the same anti-science bs that deniers use. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Mock Mark Jacobson all you want, but he is a respected climate scientist. He just wrote a few "what-if" papers, that a lot of people confuse as predictions. His what-ifs are about as well-grounded in reality as the idea that In addition, being skilled in one area doesn't mean he isn't a total crackpot in a different area. quote:Like the paper you're mocking right now. You've clearly not read it closely, because it was an examination of the potential risks of proliferation, a real thing, and not nuclear power == nuclear bombs. quote:But yeah, you found one paper you disagree with, therefor lets ignore all the other science he's done, because that's how science works, not examining the specific results. Basically he's the Seralini of energy policy
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:clearly you aren't thinking sufficiently far ahead and where would we go? and how would we get there in any meaningful timeframe? and if the ship or ships fail or are destroyed on the way? anyone who thinks this sort of nonsense is the way out of any problems we are currently having does not quite understand how truly dangerous and inhospitable space is. i truly hope all autistic space libertarians make a go of it and all die for clarity, i do believe space travel is a worthwhile pursuit and i think we would do well to better fund nasa and science in general but space travel will not save us as a species should we destroy the earth
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:"The world has too many humans! Overpopulation is the issue! All those overbreeding third worlders!" There are a lot of cultural issues that need to be overcome before you can overcome them politically. The issue with politicians is that they basically reflect their constituents. The job of every politician is to get reelected because that's how they keep their paychecks. They get reelected by doing the things that their direct constituents want which is why there are politicians that can be absurdly awful to the point that nobody else likes them. But if their constituents are like "you show 'em, buddy!" then they stay in place (I'm thinking about people like Cruz and McConnell). In American culture perception of success is based very heavily on your car and your house. If you lack one or the other you aren't considered successful. America hates people that are not successful. You must look successful in America or you're an immature loser who Doesn't Get It. If you own an expensive SUV and can afford the gas it takes to do your 45 to 90 minute commute from the suburbs where you live in a house thrice the size you actually need you have Made It. You are successful. You have won. Go you. More importantly you've earned it. Since this is what gets rewarded socially this is what people aspire to. To make matters worse large apartment blocks are associated with those people. That can variously be black people, liberals, hippies, white trash, urban ferals, whatever. There are a large variety of those peoples that housing projects, apartments, and high-density living is associated with. Putting that up is also extremely difficult as that housing tends to be cheaper which, of course, brings in poor people and gently caress them. They aren't successful and don't deserve to live near us. Oh, so now they have nowhere to go? Not my loving problem. To make matters worse low-density housing sprawl leads to higher demand on living space but lower supply which shoves land values up. People who own the land obviously want their land values to go up so they're going to fight against more supply of living space tooth and nail. In this case it isn't the land value so much as house value. They also don't want their views spoiled by tall buildings. Given how much Americans despise mass transit there is also the resistance to high density, walkable areas with lots of mass transit automatically. Once again those things are associated with Europe (loving liberals), dirty hippies, and the like. And you know what? gently caress those people. If you start doing things like caring about the poor, putting up mass transit, and social justice you start attracting liberals and hippies and gently caress those people. A lot of it is just plain about control. Your bog standard suburbanites want to create their little bubble that they get to control what happens within. They absolutely don't care who else it hurts. It's peak FYGM and it's what American politics runs on. It isn't my problem if others are suffering and dying. If they wanted in the bubble they'd work hard to earn it and by that I mean they can never work hard enough to get in. We got in and now they have to stay the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:and where would we go? and how would we get there in any meaningful timeframe? and if the ship or ships fail or are destroyed on the way? anyone who thinks this sort of nonsense is the way out of any problems we are currently having does not quite understand how truly dangerous and inhospitable space is. Your post is pretty much the point of my space posting in the climate thread. Space colonialism IN SPACE is only a (hypothetical) good solution to scenarios where the planet is roasted by things completely outside human control, and has nothing to do with saving us from existing manmade problems beyond happening to benefit from some of the same basic science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:edit2: heck, I don't agree with Jacobson on a lot, a lot of things. In particular as the questions get farther away from "what would be awesome" and closer to "what can we actually get done, politically and economically" I disagree with him more and more. But it gets to me to see pro-climate people use the same anti-science bs that deniers use. People think in the same ways. At some point issues become too complex to grasp and people fall back to rules of thumb/~tribalism~/being stupid shits. That point may be reached later by well-educated smart people, but it still exists for them (see also: retired physicists making GBS threads on climate science in general). It's also unsurprising that pro-climate people include stupid fucks who have ended up backing the right horse out of dumb luck or because their unfounded Really Strong Opinions happen to be based on romanticising ~natural~ things instead of being a FYGM rear end in a top hat, or whatever you think a particular person is being an idiot about. IMO the best recourse is to call out people for spouting bullshit when venturing beyond their area of expertise. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:and where would we go? and how would we get there in any meaningful timeframe? Moons of Jupiter, baby. Moons of fuckin' Jupiter. Ganymede even has a magnetosphere to keep its atmosphere from dispersing, which means any terraforming would be roughly permanent -- which can't be said for Mars or any moon in the solar system other than Ganymede. Europa's awesome but can't hold on to an atmosphere, so we'd have to adapt toward living inside the global under-ice ocean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
If we are going so far as to think about terraforming other worlds for habitation, wouldn't just staying here on Earth and doing it instead while living underground at some depth be more practical?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:We got in and now they have to stay the gently caress out. This is very well said. America Runs on Spite, and attacking climate change in that environment is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:If we are going so far as to think about terraforming other worlds for habitation, wouldn't just staying here on Earth and doing it instead while living underground at some depth be more practical? Shhhh if you talk about geo-engineering loud enough, we might decide not to try adaptation and mitigation first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Moons of Jupiter, baby. Moons of fuckin' Jupiter. Ganymede even has a magnetosphere to keep its atmosphere from dispersing, which means any terraforming would be roughly permanent -- which can't be said for Mars or any moon in the solar system other than Ganymede. Europa's awesome but can't hold on to an atmosphere, so we'd have to adapt toward living inside the global under-ice ocean. Holding an atmosphere is not just a question of magnetosphere (and in any event Ganymede's is feeble compared to ours, its only notable since its the only moon that appears to have a significant one) its also related to its gravity since that determines its ability to retain lighter gases, which Ganymede doesn't do well with only 1/8th the surface gravity of earth. Besides when you're as far away from the sun as Jupiter then solar wind is much less of an issue so a magnetosphere isn't a big deal, especially when Jupiter's one envelops a bunch of its moons. What is a big deal is the feeble sunlight, very low temperatures, Jupiter's gravity well and Ganymede's surface gravity being low enough to likely decay your bones!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:If we are going so far as to think about terraforming other worlds for habitation, wouldn't just staying here on Earth and doing it instead while living underground at some depth be more practical? Correct. In fact I enthusiastically support it as a solution right now. The main problem really I think is the light issue unless you want to accept a high rate of mental health issues for those living underground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There are a lot of cultural issues that need to be overcome before you can overcome them politically. The issue with politicians is that they basically reflect their constituents. The job of every politician is to get reelected because that's how they keep their paychecks. They get reelected by doing the things that their direct constituents want which is why there are politicians that can be absurdly awful to the point that nobody else likes them. But if their constituents are like "you show 'em, buddy!" then they stay in place (I'm thinking about people like Cruz and McConnell). This is pretty naive. Politicians don't get re-elected by doing things that their direct constituents want. They get re-elected by doing what their campaign donors want. Those funds can then be used for PR, to do things like run advertisements and sponsor "research" from think-tanks, etc. which in turn shape public opinion to align with the interests of the campaign donors and therefore those of the politician.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
In a different sort of news, 14 years worth of rain in a single day (and further rain on other days) for a super dry location: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-year-of-rain/
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This is pretty naive. Politicians don't get re-elected by doing things that their direct constituents want. They get re-elected by doing what their campaign donors want. Those funds can then be used for PR, to do things like run advertisements and sponsor "research" from think-tanks, etc. which in turn shape public opinion to align with the interests of the campaign donors and therefore those of the politician. "Constituents" meaning "the people who get them elected." Perhaps it was just bad word choice on my part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Marco Rubio announced that if the Climate is changing, then we should do nothing to stop it as obviously that is what god wants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Marco Rubio announced that if the Climate is changing, then we should do nothing to stop it as obviously that is what god wants. You know for some reason when I read the first part of your sentence I thought you were going to finish with something along of the lines of 'then we should make earnest efforts to combat it as soon as possible'. I was ready to be all 'well at least even the right wing is understanding the gravity of the situation now  '.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Marco Rubio announced that if the Climate is changing, then we should do nothing to stop it as obviously that is what god wants. Big Oil: literally God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 08:56
|
|