|
Potato Salad posted:Thank you for illuminating the point. Yeah duh the blue line isn't just the sine of the latitude. There's still more outgoing IR at the Equator than the poles, isn't there? I think we are in agreement that the NET energy at the poles is negative (which is why heat is transported poleward by the atmosphere), I just took offense at the idea that the poles radiate more IR energy outward than the Equator, that's absurd. e: I never claimed that water vapor didn't have an effect on outgoing radiation either. Don Pigeon fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Mar 1, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
I got defensive because I was debating something earlier today unrelated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
For a period of 24 hours (March 2 - March 3), the average temperature across the northern hemisphere was 2C above pre-industrial averagequote:Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention. *AHEM*   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
The months long uncontrollable methane release in California probably didn't help matters. At least they plugged it this past month, finally. Alas, it is inconsequential... its total output was something like 1/4th of what California alone spews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:For a period of 24 hours (March 2 - March 3), the average temperature across the northern hemisphere was 2C above pre-industrial average So, obviously this is *not good* but I'm a bit simple and need a little clarification on all of this. I thought hitting the 2C mark was something we all figured we'd be blowing past in the coming decades, not...now? Does this mean we're all staring down the barrel of hopelessness in the next 10-20 years or something? And if so, how does one not feel suicidal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
tmfool posted:So, obviously this is *not good* but I'm a bit simple and need a little clarification on all of this. I thought hitting the 2C mark was something we all figured we'd be blowing past in the coming decades, not...now? Does this mean we're all staring down the barrel of hopelessness in the next 10-20 years or something? And if so, how does one not feel suicidal? Yeah as far as global warming goes we're basically already far beyond the "welp, we're hosed" point. As for not suicidal well, I just remind myself that we still might gently caress off to space soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:As for not suicidal well, I just remind myself that we still might gently caress off to space soon. Nobody is going to be living in space in our lifetimes, not even billionaires. Even if a tiny number of people were to live in space, this would not benefit everyone else, so there's no reason to be happy/not suicidal when considering this subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
tmfool posted:So, obviously this is *not good* but I'm a bit simple and need a little clarification on all of this. I thought hitting the 2C mark was something we all figured we'd be blowing past in the coming decades, not...now? Does this mean we're all staring down the barrel of hopelessness in the next 10-20 years or something? And if so, how does one not feel suicidal? Calm down, it's the 2c above the yearly average which is the mark you're thinking of, not the daily average. An extreme one day value does not mean we've blown past the predictions. It's still loving hot not but not out of order in an El Niño year
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Calm down, it's the 2c above the yearly average which is the mark you're thinking of, not the daily average. An extreme one day value does not mean we've blown past the predictions. It's still loving hot not but not out of order in an El Niño year https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/705248491023380480
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
drat it's going to be really hard to get my bunker ready in time
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:drat it's going to be really hard to get my bunker ready in time you fool, all that concrete is just going to trap the heat in with you. You need to build a large underground swimming pool like I am.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
What's a global warming denier to do when their favorite data set starts to show global warming? Move on to the next dataset that "proves" your claim, of course: upper troposphere (100mb) temperatures!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:What's a global warming denier to do when their favorite data set starts to show global warming? That fucker will be making up whatever numbers he wants as the world burns around him. He's also the favorite go to for all my conservative friends. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html quote:Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Denial) has broadened his harassment of climate scientists. Get this: He wants NOAA administration to hand over every scientist email that contains words like "temperature" and "climate". Yes, seriously. gently caress you Lamar Smith. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That fucker will be making up whatever numbers he wants as the world burns around him. He's also the favorite go to for all my conservative friends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
While it's unfortunate that climate change will brutally punish those who deserve it the least, at least we can all take comfort in the fact that, eventually, denialists will get theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Radbot posted:While it's unfortunate that climate change will brutally punish those who deserve it the least, at least we can all take comfort in the fact that, eventually, denialists will get theirs. Not really, they'll go on to live mostly comfortable lives, avoiding any acknowledgement of harm until their peaceful deaths of old age. Let's not pretend that there is any degree of real justice here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/14/global_warming_took_another_big_jump_in_february_2016.html 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
There really is no way to create a long-term habitation bunker for less than tens of millions of dollars, is there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Besides, if I had that kind of money, I'd build a small wind farm and literally print money for the rest of my life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
I already know climate change is causing water levels to rise, is it possible for the water levels to rise so much that the water evaporates and we don't have any more water left to drink?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Besides, if I had that kind of money, I'd build a small wind farm and literally print money for the rest of my life. Goddamn I need to buy some land at some point. Western paradigm of property  Frykte posted:I already know climate change is causing water levels to rise, is it possible for the water levels to rise so much that the water evaporates and we don't have any more water left to drink? I think it's more a matter of, the water cycle gets pushed into higher gear. For all the water to be evaporated, I believe the temperature would have to be past its boiling point everywhere (right now average global temp is 15.8 C), which I don't see happening but regardless we'd all be dead by then. Like, some water evaporates now, but that raises the partial pressure of water vapor in the atmosphere, which essentially makes it take marginally more energy for the next "layer" of water to evaporate. But until the ice caps are entirely melted, there will be more water going in than coming out of the ocean with each unit of temperature rise. I'm not very familiar with the models, but when more of the atmosphere is water vapor, that increases the incidence of hurricanes. It's not technically true if anyone says a given hurricane is "because of climate change," but the frequencies of hurricanes (lambda) of given sizes do go up with the partial pressure of water vapor. So like, more of our previously potable water may come in the form of storms in areas where it can't readily be collected and treated. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
So all the drinkable water is either going to be swirling around in hurricanes or in the Coca cola corporations water silos?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
OK, I have been lurking here for months and I just can't take it anymore. I want someone to give it to me straight right here and right now. I am sorry if I sound like an utter crazy person but this topic is one of the few things that can cause me to go into absolute panic. I don't want to live in some post apocalyptic hellscape. Hell, even something similar to the beginning of Interstellar is terror to me. Best case scenario in some collapse situation is living in a small community. I cannot do that. I am not good with people and all my interests are dependent on technology. I have lived in a small town before and everyone there is horribly gossipy and would immediately make me an outcast. Plus there is the whole aspect of digging around in the dirt for 12 hours a day for subsistence farming. I cannot even get the energy to cook after an 8 hour work day. People around me always wonder why I am so calm in stressful situations such as layoffs, etc. This is why. In the face of stuff like this everything else looks trivial. I cannot even plan for my future anymore because it all seems condemned to turn to dust. The cliché advice in this situation is "turn to your loved ones". Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury. What is to be done then? Do I just keep a noose handy until everything inevitably falls apart? I am already doing what I can environmentally wise: I don't drive, try to save power. I am not vegetarian but I try to cut back. How exactly do you guys handle it? Is it fear of death that simply keeps you from doing anything drastic? tl;dr If things are so bad WHAT IS THE GODDAMNED POINT IN ANYTHING?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Overflight posted:tl;dr If things are so bad WHAT IS THE GODDAMNED POINT IN ANYTHING? Simply put, if your panic about anything is preventing you from functioning in life, you need to fix that. That being said, theres no shame in seeking mental help, such as therapy or even just a friend. (If you don't like people, maybe get a pet?) I am not a mental health professional, so I can't be of service beyond what I've already said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
I am perfectly functioning. I just have this overwhelming sense of pointlessness and lack of aim that I have to occasionally overcome in order to keep a "career". And I am seeking therapy but I usually hold back about this subject. My therapist has a daughter and I don't want to scare her with statements like "your daughter will live a horrible life and likely die a horrible death cursing you bringing her into this world". The one time I did express my concerns about the state of the world, she gave the old "technology will solve it" speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Overflight posted:tl;dr If things are so bad WHAT IS THE GODDAMNED POINT IN ANYTHING? I'm going to tell you a story, Overflight, stay a while and listen. A thousand years ago in eastern Anatolia, there was a marvelous city called Ani: capital of the Armenian empire. In the 9th century this city shone brighter than Constantinople in wealth and power, "the city of 1001 churches" they called it. Stunning feats of architecture were performed, the crumbled remnants of which can still be seen to this day. It was one of the greatest cities of the medieval world. Was. You see, at the turn of the Millennium, fate turned on Ani. The Seljuks invaded and massacred over half the population, burned it to the ground, and took 50,000 citizens as slaves. It recovered, slightly, and then in 1226 Ghengis Khan and his Mongols rode through and left it as a pile of corpses. The following centuries were the same: Turks, Safavids, Tamerlane; they all pushed it down the road to ruin. All that is left today is a vast plain of grass that some old guys herd cows through, dotted with a half-dozen shattered carcasses of monolithic cathedrals.  What's the point of this story? Ever heard of this place before? No? Why Not? We don't know the names of the architects who designed the few standing monuments there. We don't know the names of the millions who lived and died there for centuries, what their hopes and dreams were, what works they might have made in their free time. Who were their great artists? Their famous philosophers? Their scientists or merchant lords? What passions and sorrows cast light upon the lives which lived and died behind those crumbling walls? We do not know. We don't know, because ultimately your entire loving life is externally pointless unless you achieve something so earth shatteringly unique that it escapes the inevitable entropy of history. Unless you plan to kill a non-trivial percentage of total humans like Tamerlane, or discover / invent something that fundamentally alters our society like Ford, you're poo poo out of luck and nobody will even know you existed in about 200 years after you die (give or take). So spend less time worrying about the future: the only "point" to your life is the one you decide on and make for yourself. quote:"And on the pedestal these words appear:
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
I doubt you helped that poor autistic nerd. Good post though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Overflight posted:And I am seeking therapy but I usually hold back about this subject. My therapist has a daughter and I don't want to scare her with statements like "your daughter will live a horrible life and likely die a horrible death cursing you bringing her into this world". Overflight posted:tl;dr If things are so bad WHAT IS THE GODDAMNED POINT IN ANYTHING?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
We haven't seen any real eco terrorism yet, have we? I wonder if we ever will. Anyway, I read that CO2 emissions has stopped rising, at least looking at last year, without any global economic recession. Is there any scientific consensus regarding this? If so, that's a little hopeful, weren't emissions predicted to keep rising for a lot of big countries? Also, since this thread is supposed to be about solutions, are there any studies on what a low-CO2 society could look like? The consensus here on SA and a lot of other places seem to be that energy consumption will keep rising no matter what and the alternative is everyone living in mud huts and doing subsistence farming. But since fission power is politically unfeasible for different reasons and fusion is not going to show up in time to save the day, would it really be impossible to have a society with low levels of energy consumption but with high life-expectancy, low infant mortality, etc? I'm thinking the lifestyle of The West in the 40's but mixed with the technology of today. That is, meat is not eaten every day (and all parts of animals are eaten) but protein is also made from insect farms and "lab-grown", dairy products are replaced by oat milk and such. Cars are scarce but people use electric bikes and velomobiles to commute and transport goods within cities. Air flight doesn't exist for most people but plenty of resources are spent on healthcare. More people work in the agricultural sector but it's not completely reliant on human hands. And of course, gays don't have to hide in closets and black people can become presidents. Would that kind of society still be unsustainable if it was global? Would we able to supply such a society with enough energy from reneweable sources (without loving up every eco system building renewable energy plants)? Would it become economically and technologically stagnant? I don't really have any good data on this, but I feel like there should be a middle ground between colonizing space and tilling the land for the rest of your meager life. Of course, you could say that getting people to give up their cars, burgers and air charter is just as politically unfeasible as building tons of nuclear reactors. But, again looking at the 40's, society was able to make a shift towards a very effective and "eco-friendly" (apart from the giant military industries, I mean) economy very quickly.   
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Captain Scandinaiva posted:We haven't seen any real eco terrorism yet, have we? I wonder if we ever will. Captain Scandinaiva posted:Also, since this thread is supposed to be about solutions, are there any studies on what a low-CO2 society could look like? The consensus here on SA and a lot of other places seem to be that energy consumption will keep rising no matter what and the alternative is everyone living in mud huts and doing subsistence farming. But since fission power is politically unfeasible for different reasons and fusion is not going to show up in time to save the day, would it really be impossible to have a society with low levels of energy consumption but with high life-expectancy, low infant mortality, etc? I don't think there's really a consensus on what a post-emission society would look like. Folks like to freak out about going back to the stone age, but I don't think that's as likely as they seem to think. The future is just too unpredictable, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something. That said, there are massive efficiency gains to be made in all sorts of areas. Some examples are moving from cars to mass transit and changing city layouts and changing the way we build houses and buildings so they don't constantly hemorrhage heat, or can only be cooled with massive amounts of AC. Another possibility is that solar and wind end up powering everything and the energy grid is revamped to accommodate this. Also, lots of surveys show support for nuclear power hovers between 48% and 61% (the 48% from Gallop coming at 2001, the 61% in 2010), meaning you already have majority support for it, and that's with essentially no one advocating for it and the general public largely unaware as to what nuclear energy is, how it works, or how safe it is. I don't think that going back a pre-electric world is going to happen, and I don't think you'll find any but fringe support for that since it would be a massive disaster for billions of people (I've got more about that in the OP). Ultimately, we have the resources, technology, labor force, and ability to shift our economy into any of the above choices. The problem remains an economic and political one, and so--to address posters like Overflight--the best course of action is to get politically active.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Captain Scandinaiva posted:I'm thinking the lifestyle of The West in the 40's but mixed with the technology of today. That is, meat is not eaten every day (and all parts of animals are eaten) but protein is also made from insect farms and "lab-grown", dairy products are replaced by oat milk and such. Cars are scarce but people use electric bikes and velomobiles to commute and transport goods within cities. Air flight doesn't exist for most people but plenty of resources are spent on healthcare. More people work in the agricultural sector but it's not completely reliant on human hands. And of course, gays don't have to hide in closets and black people can become presidents. Would that kind of society still be unsustainable if it was global? Would we able to supply such a society with enough energy from reneweable sources (without loving up every eco system building renewable energy plants)? Would it become economically and technologically stagnant? I don't really have any good data on this, but I feel like there should be a middle ground between colonizing space and tilling the land for the rest of your meager life. I am perfectly OK with this. As long as I can take the bus or bike to work and we will still have the Internet. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
The problem with such a system is that on top of creating even more wealth inequality it would have to imposed by force by an authoritarian goverment. Climate justice warriors rarely take into account the actual will and desires of the people. Who the hell wants to live the life of a poor subsistence farmer who cant even get out of the ten mile radius he was born in because transportation is only for the very rich. Its like that UN guy who said humans will have to get used to eating insects!?? Hellll no im not going
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Eating insects is not that bad. I had those insect schnitzel things twice. It's just like those veggie patties you see in the supermarket that taste like meat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Or you could just use chickens which are still very environmentally conscious and also most people know how to cook them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Yeah, but how do you kill and prepare them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Yeah, but how do you kill and prepare them? With a hammer and fire. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:The problem with such a system is that on top of creating even more wealth inequality it would have to imposed by force by an authoritarian goverment. Climate justice warriors rarely take into account the actual will and desires of the people. Who the hell wants to live the life of a poor subsistence farmer who cant even get out of the ten mile radius he was born in because transportation is only for the very rich. Its like that UN guy who said humans will have to get used to eating insects!?? Hellll no im not going Its pretty clear why this problem is not really going to be solved when poo poo like this still gets thrown around as if its actually what 'Climate Justice Warriors' (is this meant to hearken to SJWs?) want to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:The problem with such a system is that on top of creating even more wealth inequality it would have to imposed by force by an authoritarian goverment. Climate justice warriors rarely take into account the actual will and desires of the people. Who the hell wants to live the life of a poor subsistence farmer who cant even get out of the ten mile radius he was born in because transportation is only for the very rich. Its like that UN guy who said humans will have to get used to eating insects!?? Hellll no im not going Yeah, the narrative "we all need to cut back" ignores that an absurd amount of resources consumption is entirely because of the whims of the ultra-rich. It also confuses excessive consumerism that our economic system requires to function for necessities. Neither inequality nor consumerism are required for a high standard of living; quite the opposite, really. However, the people in power don't want to admit that capitalism and their lifestyle is the problem, so of course no one talks about that. It's the same kind of "we have to tighten our belts during this recession" that Obama, Boehner, and media talking heads were pushing a few years back. Of course, what they really mean is "poor and middle class people need to accept cuts to welfare, schools, services, increases in tuition and taxes, and accept lovely labor practices and job insecurity so we don't have to threaten the profits of corporations or millionaires." You get the same narrative from liberals who are pushing efficient light-bulbs and hybrid cars, and letting the rich and corporations--the actual biggest polluters--off the hook. Edit: khwarezm posted:Its pretty clear why this problem is not really going to be solved when poo poo like this still gets thrown around as if its actually what 'Climate Justice Warriors' (is this meant to hearken to SJWs?) want to do. You do hear people talking about it, and it's popped up over and over again in the climate threads. Most people diving into the thread the first time will ask some question related to it, like "are we all going to have to till soil and poop in ditches?" or "is there any hope or are my children going to be slaves working in the landfill mines of the grim hot future?" It indicates the prevalence of the narrative, which is why I think it's important to address those worries and point out that, no, that's not what needs to happen. Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
OK, so can someone please provide or point out to me a proper list of the kind of stuff that WOULD be necessary? I know answers might vary but I think it would put the minds of people like me at ease. My nightmare scenario, like I said, is one akin to Interstellar where everyone is pressured into becoming farmers and even technology and progress is a dirty word. One where everyone is forced to work 12 hours a day growing their own food until their backs give out and the rest of the community puts you down for being useless. When you say "cutting back" exactly WHAT do you mean? I can live without travel. I do not own a car. I can even live without beef. But will I have to add a significant amount of manual labor to my daily existence? Will there have to be a greater focus on "community" and what guarantees will I have that this will not lead to an increase in tribalism and shunning of anyone who is different somehow, even for details as trivial as "not liking to drink" (which already cuts off a significant form of socializing). If we are to break the deadlock between alarmism and denial we HAVE to start pushing for the truth to come out. Edit: ^ yes, thank you. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Overflight posted:OK, so can someone please provide or point out to me a proper list of the kind of stuff that WOULD be necessary? I know answers might vary but I think it would put the minds of people like me at ease. My nightmare scenario, like I said, is one akin to Interstellar where everyone is pressured into becoming farmers and even technology and progress is a dirty word. One where everyone is forced to work 12 hours a day growing their own food until their backs give out and the rest of the community puts you down for being useless. The problem is less that there are X things we must do, and instead there are many options. Carbon neutral economies could be achieved simply by redirecting a portion of the world's military spending into mitigation. Or by any of 1000 different methodologies, the issue is political practicality and economic realities. If anything, to combat climate change most effectively we will end up with a more interconnected, more technological, and more developed world. Replacing cookstoves in Africa with biogas future proofs against emissions in the out years, reduces infrastructure related to missions in the present, and improve quality-of-life and economic opportunity. If you're panicking about what you can do to help stop climate change, becoming a net negative carbon emitter is probably the best thing one individual could do. That's as simple as installing a solar, reducing your own consumption and off or planting a bunch of loving trees. that's as simple as installing enough solar, reducing your own consumption or planting a bunch of loving trees. Even just progress towards goals like these are helpful net positive for the climate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
