|
The problem with global warming is that it takes a coordinated global effort in order to fix the problem. And it needs to be from the top down, because even if you personally change your habits, even if you convince your whole neighborhood to change their habits, even if one entire region of the globe switches their lifestyle, they are going to suffer while the other parts of the world take advantage of the situation to get richer and more powerful. Even if the whole country of India as a whole somehow decides to curb their emissions (assuming they magically find the money or the technology to do that), then they will fall behind economically and militarily to other developing countries who decide to roll coal for the next twenty years. Even more problematic is that first world nations are telling the developing world that we are all in the same boat and we all need to cut emissions together, but the developing nations know the advantage that the industrial revolution gave to the first world countries and they also want to experience that same growth and level of comfort. For this reason, the onus is on the first world to enact change on a massive scale. But look at the presidential debates: not a single question is asked about plans to fix the problem. We can't even get the rich to pay their fair share of taxes to fix our schools and bridges, how in the world are we going to convince them to stop making products in Asia that are shipped halfway across the globe? How are we going to convince big agriculture and the western population to stop consuming so much red meat? How can we convince Americans to stop driving their big trucks everywhere when the whole of society was built around cheap transportation? Nations around the globe are still fighting and posturing over tiny rocks in the sea, do you think they will get together to fix global warming? It's clear that a global revolution is needed to overthrow the current economic system that caused this mess and the current political system that sustains it. Good luck!
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Want to back that claim up with science? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/abs/nature07809.html  I mean, what part of the claim do you take issue with? Where's a realistic plan that stops it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I don't think the future impacts of climate change are that certain, it's a difficult subject. I did admit that humanity probably needs to get lucky in some regards, positive feedback cycles need to be less severe than feared etc. I fully agree that 10m of sea rise is likely inevitable at this point, but there is a huge difference between it happening over 100 vs 500 years. The second is pretty survivable, the first not so much. Given that exponential temperature rise is happening today http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ The question is in years is 20 vs 50, not 100 vs 500. And you're right, 100 isn't survivable. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 You said it was technologically impossible to prevent 4C something neither of those papers back up. Do you have any science to support that claim or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You said it was technologically impossible to prevent 4C something neither of those papers back up. Do you have any science to support that claim or what? I believe the onus is on you to prove it's technologically possible. All the science is saying catastrophic and abrupt climate change is exactly what's coming. And the science also says our current political systems can't survive those sorts of changes. So how am I supposed to conclude anything but the collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable at this point, and most likely the extinction of the species.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Given that exponential temperature rise is happening today http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 10m sea rise in 50 years is not plausible. I'm not understating the challenge of climate change, that's just not supported by current science. Over 500 years maybe, which is already pretty serious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I believe the onus is on you to prove it's technologically possible. All the science is saying that's exactly what's coming. Except you're making unscientific jumps to the conclusion from "business as usual leads to this horrible scenario" to: quote:there's literally nothing we can do to stop a 4c+ raise in the global temperature at this point, including shutting down civilization. I have no obligation to find evidence to dispute this unscientific claim when you fail to provide any of your own. Besides, if I post a technologically feasible plan you'll shift the goal posts to political feasibility, and if I then provide a politically feasible plan you'll declare the problem impossible to solve and that I must hate the global poor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:10m sea rise in 50 years is not plausible. I'm not understating the challenge of climate change, that's just not supported by current science. Over 500 years maybe, which is already pretty serious. Based on what? http://e360.yale.edu/feature/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica/2990/ http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html 50 years is not only plausible but likely at this point if we don't come up with magical technology that some in this thread seem to think we can will into existence and then will back into the past Trabisnikof posted:Besides, if I post a technologically feasible plan you'll shift the goal posts to political feasibility, and if I then provide a politically feasible plan you'll declare the problem impossible to solve and that I must hate the global poor. Well yes, if your plan doesn't account for reality isn't much of a plan. I already told you what a plan to "fix things" from the developed world should look like (still wouldn't be able to stop anything at this point). The plans now are making things worse, not better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Based on what? quote:Now, a growing number of studies are raising the possibility that as those ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise by six feet this century I think you're confused as to what a "meter" is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I did admit that humanity probably needs to get lucky in some regards, positive feedback cycles need to be less severe than feared etc. Not to sound overly pessimistic or anything, but it's probably not a good idea to assume that this will actually be the case. Our models have consistently been too conservative and our predictions are almost universally revised up as more data is collected. Even our inventory of emissions has tended to be too conservative, sometimes by quite a bit. At this point, I think the only way to seriously talk about climate change and plans to mitigate it is to assume that the best case scenarios are 100% unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think you're confused as to what a "meter" is. Read the entire article and then the second paper (which is the basis for the statements in the later parts of the article) Like gently caress, it's no wonder you all don't actually understand reality. If you stick to headlines and abstracts you'll get a very watered down view of the science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Based on what? Once again you're citing articles that don't back what you want them to say: quote:James Hansen, a climatologist at Columbia University, summarized the evidence for rapid sea level rise in a recent controversial paper, raising some eyebrows at its stark warnings of catastrophe. Though many researchers have taken issue with the dramatic tone and specific details of that paper, its conclusion — that multi-meter sea level rise is possible in the next 50, 100, or 200 years — does not seem so alarmist in the face of other recent work. quote:The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions. Neither of those says anything close to 10m in 50 years being "likely"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:What makes the whole "don't have kids" argument so dumb is there is no way it's ever politically acceptable, it can't be universalized. A few individuals might decide to forego having kids, but unless you can convince the vast majority of humanity to go along (you won't) the reductions are marginal. Individual actions aren't enough on this issue, collective action is required. The number of children that people have is behavioral, based on the social and economic situations of the time and place; when the harm that comes from having ever more consumers is publicized, along with the advantages of having fewer chidren, plus other factors such as women's education, then people's behavior will shift; when people call choosing to have fewer children "dumb", people's behavior will also shift, in the wrong direction. Rather than "a few individuals" deciding to have fewer children, there is an overall change in the fertility level, resulting from the aforementioned factors. Discussing and promoting having fewer children and not flying around the world promotes collective action, even if that action is composed of the actions of millions of individuals who don't necessarily know that their actions contribute to an overall behavioral shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I believe the onus is on you to prove it's technologically possible. All the science is saying catastrophic and abrupt climate change is exactly what's coming. And the science also says our current political systems can't survive those sorts of changes. So how am I supposed to conclude anything but the collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable at this point, and most likely the extinction of the species. Well, one good reason is that your belief in inevitable human extinction is conjecture, as opposed to a fact or scientific inference. There are actual researchers who attempt to estimate the probability of human extinction due to climate, nuclear war, or pandemic, and most estimates come out to about 10% this CENTURY (see this year's Global Catastrophic Risk report for discussion). That isn't inevitable, and it certainly isn't hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Read the entire article and then the second paper. Why don't you quote the parts that support your argument if you actually have read the papers? Because thus far it seems like you're just linking random science with keywords that match your argument without reading them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Read the entire article and then the second paper. quote:Turning their model to the future, DeConto and Pollard project more than three feet of sea level rise from Antarctica alone by 2100 — assuming growing greenhouse gas emissions that boost the planet’s temperature by about 4 degrees C (7 degrees F). That is far more than the last IPCC estimate in 2013, which projected less than eight inches of sea level rise from a melting Antarctic by 2100, with a possibility for inches more from the dramatic collapse of Antarctic glaciers. So again, 3 feet in a 4C scenario from Antarctica (by 2100, not 2050), tell me where the remaining 30 feet of sea level is going to come from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:25
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Organize, and fight for the best future that you can. Nihilism is yielding to the status quo. Immediate and substantial reduction of CO2 emissions is required in order to prevent the massive and effectively irreversible impacts on the ecosystem not to mention the already hosed oceans, we are already organised its how we manage our lives its called the government, they funded the science, people are informed we all know the facts whether they are denied or not, we have known we must stop emissions for years, we did not do it. All the warming contributes to the ocean and the ecosystem not absorbing as much co2 as it could before, all the warming is contributing to releasing some of the 1600 gigatonnes of co2 in the ground - this is the big oh poo poo, its happening. Greenland is set to irreversibly melt past 1.5 degree of warming - this means something like half of humanity needs to find higher ground. The 2 degree line is really the point where our ecosystems break down completely and feedback loops are unstoppable. So we set ourselves a limit of 2 degrees, laughing in the face of the science that says if we reach 2 degrees, we are more or less guaranteed to hit 3 degrees from the co2 in the ground. Talk about setting ourselves up to fail.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except you're making unscientific jumps to the conclusion from "business as usual leads to this horrible scenario" to: I have no obligation to prove to you that there isn't a tuna fish sandwich capable of sequestering carbon dioxide on my desk right now. Or that there is. Do you see where your shuffling of onus / burden is funky here? Just back up whatever the gently caress you post, whether you are providing credit to your own poo poo or discrediting someone else's. Getting into a staring match of "You have nothing and neither do I" is fine, but going "In the following situation, I have moral authority" is infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Neither of those says anything close to 10m in 50 years being "likely" Well yes, because the data they are working with doesn't expect things to get as bad as they've gotten. They only had 2014 business as usual to work with. Like I said, the question is 20 or 50 years. 50 years is the optimistic view at this point in my eyes. Humanity's optimism bias is blinding us on this one. I'd love to be proven wrong but until I start hearing policy makers and individuals like yourself face reality. Look, there's not a scientific paper that says "extinction of the human race is coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it" but there are plenty that say business as usual will lead to 4c+ by 2050. And also plenty saying industrial civilization wouldn't survive that as well. Until we can reconcile those two ideas, arguing about the individual impacts is a waste of time. Unless you have a plan that accounts for political and technological realities that changes that, you are allowing hope to blind you. computer parts posted:So again, 3 feet in a 4C scenario from Antarctica (by 2100, not 2050), tell me where the remaining 30 feet of sea level is going to come from. BAHAHAHHA you did it again. Amazing. No, keep reading dude and actually click the second link in my post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
I'm not sure you understand how science works if you think it involves fabricating numbers to replace whatever existing evidence you personally dislike. Also wait you didn't say whether or not I am denying reality this time HOW WILL I KNOW I AM JUST A POOR BLIND SHEEPLE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
anyone wanna be an adult and debate
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
I wish your posts were long enough for me to just read the first sentence and ignore the rest. I'm guessing this post is an admission that the words got to be too much about half way through the first link and you just gave up? Forever_Peace posted:I'm not sure you understand how science works if you think it involves fabricating numbers to replace whatever existing evidence you personally dislike. And yet, we have scientific papers coming out today talking about how today's climate plans are literally fabricating numbers when it comes to CCS. So maybe... that is how science works? Look, I think the science has a ton of different indicators and not many people are putting them together. When they do, things get worse. I thought 100 years was an insane number 2 years ago, but now we're seeing numbers like 50 being put forth. Where it was a 1000 10 years ago. The writing is on the wall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I have no obligation to prove to you that there isn't a tuna fish sandwich capable of sequestering carbon dioxide on my desk right now. If there was I would suggest you patent that poo poo asap. No I hear you, building a global plan to 1.5C (lol) 2C (maybe) or below 4C (hopeful) or whatever is a vastly challenging and daunting task. But the idea that it is "scientifically proven impossible to stop 4C" is an ideological roadblock that makes discussion of the minutiae of implementation meaningless. We have to address this underlying conflict first before a meaningful discussion on implementation can be held. Much like how we stop our bickering over to poo poo on Arkane as that conflict is more fundamental. NewForumSoftware posted:Well yes, because the data they are working with doesn't expect things to get as bad as they've gotten. They only had 2014 business as usual to work with. Like I said, the question is 20 or 50 years. 50 years is the optimistic view at this point in my eyes. Humanity's optimism bias is blinding us on this one. I'd love to be proven wrong but until I start hearing policy makers and individuals like yourself face reality. Look, there's not a scientific paper that says "extinction of the human race is coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it" but there are plenty that say business as usual will lead to 4c+ by 2050. And also plenty saying industrial civilization wouldn't survive that as well. Until we can reconcile those two ideas, arguing about the individual impacts is a waste of time. Unless you have a plan that accounts for political and technological realities that changes that, you are allowing hope to blind you. What you seem to fail to understand is your extrapolations from science you read is no longer scientific. It is obviously so, when to defend your own claims about 10m in 50 years, you undermine the papers you claim support you and basically argue your in-head model is better than their because you've integrated new data. Also that second link doesn't support you like you keep claiming. Quote where it does if it so easily supports you. NewForumSoftware posted:I wish your posts were long enough for me to just read the first sentence and ignore the rest. I'm guessing this post is an admission that the words got to be too much about half way through the first link and you just gave up? Quote where it says 10 meters of sea level rise is likely within 50 years or maybe perhaps 
Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So again, 3 feet in a 4C scenario from Antarctica (by 2100, not 2050), tell me where the remaining 30 feet of sea level is going to come from. I mean, this is already pretty catastrophic. There's no need to inflate the scale of the problem to something unrealistic. Placid Marmot posted:The number of children that people have is behavioral, based on the social and economic situations of the time and place; when the harm that comes from having ever more consumers is publicized, along with the advantages of having fewer chidren, plus other factors such as women's education, then people's behavior will shift; when people call choosing to have fewer children "dumb", people's behavior will also shift, in the wrong direction. Rather than "a few individuals" deciding to have fewer children, there is an overall change in the fertility level, resulting from the aforementioned factors. Discussing and promoting having fewer children and not flying around the world promotes collective action, even if that action is composed of the actions of millions of individuals who don't necessarily know that their actions contribute to an overall behavioral shift. Does it really promote collective action? Can you estimate how much carbon emissions have been reduced by "discussing and promoting having fewer children and not flying around the world"? If you can't, then how do you know this discussion is having any effect at all? If it's not clear, I dislike the emphasis on individual action as a solution to climate change as there's no evidence it accomplishes anything. We need actual solutions, not things that make people feel good about themselves. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But the idea that it is "scientifically proven impossible to stop 4C" is an ideological roadblock that makes discussion of the minutiae of implementation meaningless. Like I said, prove me wrong. Why I think that is because I literally don't believe it's possible. Drop the "scientifically proven" part if you must, the basis for my claims are the science but obviously my personal conclusion is my own. But until I see a realistic plan that actually attempts to reverse things, why should I believe it's possible? computer parts posted:You're having a strange meltdown over your own papers contradicting you. The first link was an article (not a paper) written about many papers. The paper, which I linked in the post itself, was mentioned at the bottom of the article where 50m is given in a scientific publication. Look, I'm just going to throw you on ignore if you start actually contributing someone will quote your post and I'll take you off. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I wish your posts were long enough for me to just read the first sentence and ignore the rest. I'm guessing this post is an admission that the words got to be too much about half way through the first link and you just gave up? You're having a strange meltdown over your own papers contradicting you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:And yet, we have scientific papers coming out today talking about how today's climate plans are literally fabricating numbers when it comes to CCS. So maybe... that is how science works? If you're using "literally" in a figurative sense here, then no this is still wrong. I posted that paper, that's not what it said, and as an actual scientist, for the love of God please stop wrapping your bullshit in a mantle of credibility you neither earned nor understand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:If you're using "literally" in a figurative sense here, then no this is still wrong. I posted that paper, that's not what it said, and as an actual scientist, for the love of God please stop wrapping your bullshit in a mantle of credibility you neither earned nor understand. quote:First, the scenarios assume that the large-scale rollout of negative-emission technologies is technically, economically, and socially viable This is what I mean by literally making up numbers. If you assume all of these things, your number is as good as fiction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If there was I would suggest you patent that poo poo asap. To the contrary, if I loved humanity, I'd need to open that intellectual property up to the public as broadly as I possibly can. Brb, contacting patent lawyer Trabisnikof posted:But the idea that it is "scientifically proven impossible to stop 4C" is an ideological roadblock that makes discussion of the minutiae of implementation meaningless. We have to address this underlying conflict first before a meaningful discussion on implementation can be held. Much like how we stop our bickering over to poo poo on Arkane as that conflict is more fundamental. I think this is a stumbling block in some of the communication in this thread. I don't think some other posters realize that, to an extent, you fundamentally "get it." I'm assuming, by extension, that you're aware that this kind of tech doesn't exist yet? Perhaps another way of asking the question -- on our current track, assuming no gigantic political upsets, are we likely to go above 4C? If that answer is yes, then the question "What is to be done?" in the thread title isn't invalid even then -- the discussion is then "Well, what kind of upsets do we need, and how do we mobilize for them?" There isn't as much information on local green action as I'd like to see in this thread. You can do a lot at the low levels of gubbermint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:anyone wanna be an adult and debate Sure! My friend is obsessed with being an urban agriculture entrepreneur right now, and my fb timeline is always filled with the #feed9Bin2050 chatter. Given the trends we expect to see in the next 20-50 years, even in a best-case scenario, is this at all realistic? Do we really have 2-3 Billion more people to fit on the planet before we finally "level off" our population growth, or will we finally backslide once global economic panics become more frequent due to rising instability? E; not to derail too hard or anything, but we at least have consensus on the fact that we're not about to purge ourselves back under 1B global pop and we're also not about to shut down industrial civ, soooo yeah, poo poo's gonna be hosed for a long time. That being said, I think some of the more worried people are being too hyperbolic/underestimating our ingenuity. We'll live in brotherhood of steel-style bunkers eating vat-grown yeasts before accepting extinction. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
So why link it? Seems very irresponsible of you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:47
|
|
The Groper posted:Sure! My friend is obsessed with being an urban agriculture entrepreneur right now, and my fb timeline is always filled with the #feed9Bin2050 chatter. Given the trends we expect to see in the next 20-50 years, even in a best-case scenario, is this at all realistic? Do we really have 2-3 Billion more people to fit on the planet before we finally "level off" our population growth, or will we finally backslide once global economic panics become more frequent due to rising instability? ouch..right in the hope..
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Sure! My friend is obsessed with being an urban agriculture entrepreneur right now, and my fb timeline is always filled with the #feed9Bin2050 chatter. Given the trends we expect to see in the next 20-50 years, even in a best-case scenario, is this at all realistic? Do we really have 2-3 Billion more people to fit on the planet before we finally "level off" our population growth, or will we finally backslide once global economic panics become more frequent due to rising instability? I've gone down the path of attempting to go off grid and all I can say is that going without industrial civilization is much harder than most give it credit for. There's a reason you don't meet many second generation homesteaders. There are some things that are easy to give up, but there are others (medical care, internet, the rule of law) that I seriously doubt most people building "replacements for society" have put much thought into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
If you're the sort to teach your children the importance of climate change, than refusing to have children seems like it will only make things worse, since the people who do not care about climate change are obviously going to continue to have children. It is at best a short term delaying tactic ... except that even in the short term any massive embracing of the attitude would destroy our economic and industrial base and make dealing with worsening climate change even more impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I've gone down the path of attempting to go off grid and all I can say is that going without industrial civilization is much harder than most give it credit for. There's a reason you don't meet many second generation homesteaders. There are some things that are easy to give up, but there are others (medical care, internet, the rule of law) that I seriously doubt most people building "replacements for society" have put much thought into. What does that have to do with meeting the demands of a 9B+ global population?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Like I said, prove me wrong. Why I think that is because I literally don't believe it's possible. Drop the "scientifically proven" part if you must, the basis for my claims are the science but obviously my personal conclusion is my own. But until I see a realistic plan that actually attempts to reverse things, why should I believe it's possible? You're the one who keeps claiming the science is backing you, but you can't quote any science that does. Your personal conclusions are based on unscientific interpretations of science. But I'm not throwing out plans because I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I don't think any plan I could show you could convince you it is possible because you don't want to be convinced. But there is a way to move forward: what would a plan have to do to conivnce you? Stay below long term 4C? Or peak 4C? Or must a plan stay lower? Is a plan allowed to use a treaty? What about non-binding action? Or are those "unrealistic"? Can a plan require social or lifestyle changes? Or is that impossible until proven otherwise in your book? Can a plan cost money? Or must it be revenue nuetral? Can a plan still use capitalism and the nation-state? Or is that not acceptable to you? Can a plan further global inequality? Or must we only consider fair climate plans? Can a plan consider any technological improvment? Or must it only assume current technology? Potato Salad posted:To the contrary, if I loved humanity, I'd need to open that intellectual property up to the public as broadly as I possibly can. I honestly have no loving clue if +/- side of 4C is in the current path political will. Some part of me is ready to break down in tears at the thought of meaningful US climate framework passing under Clinton. I of course recognize the hogs we will need to feed to get that done, big business. But gently caress if I care if we throw more handouts at Entergy to build nukes or at Bechtel/SolarReserve for CSP or even Ford to build electrics if we get something real in exchange. But either side of the current political inertia, action remains useful. If we're on a sub 4C side then additional action now means real and meaningful harm reduction as we mitigate our impacts. If we're on a plus 4C track currently then sure I recognize the probability exists we may be doomed, but additional action now can improve our probability of a sub 4C world and still likely mitigate harm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
The Groper posted:What does that have to do with meeting the demands of a 9B+ global population? The idea that we can piecemeal replace bits of the economy/civilization and maintain our population levels is delusion. Urban agriculture could never replace industrialized agriculture, it's job at best is going to be to soften the blow when industrialized agriculture fails. Trabisnikof posted:Stay below long term 4C? Or peak 4C? Stay below long term 1C. Peak 2C quote:Is a plan allowed to use a treaty? What about non-binding action? Or are those "unrealistic"? Yes to all of these questions. In fact, let's assume all of those things are a given.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:59
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I honestly have no loving clue if +/- side of 4C is in the current path political will. Some part of me is ready to break down in tears at the thought of meaningful US climate framework passing under Clinton. I of course recognize the hogs we will need to feed to get that done, big business. But gently caress if I care if we throw more handouts at Entergy to build nukes or at Bechtel/SolarReserve for CSP or even Ford to build electrics if we get something real in exchange. i'm officially more alarmed than when i started posting today xD
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
The Groper posted:E; not to derail too hard or anything, but we at least have consensus on the fact that we're not about to purge ourselves back under 1B global pop and we're also not about to shut down industrial civ, soooo yeah, poo poo's gonna be hosed for a long time. That being said, I think some of the more worried people are being too hyperbolic/underestimating our ingenuity. We'll live in brotherhood of steel-style bunkers eating vat-grown yeasts before accepting extinction. Absolutely. If we can preserve industrial civilization and scientific progress of some form (which I assume is more likely in developed nations than elsewhere), humanity will quite possibly persevere, though with a much reduced capacity for... everything. It means the death of most of us, though. At least the global nuclear war that will inevitably happen with mass displacement, instability and resource wars as the post-global-warming world contracts into insular and hostile groups will solve that whole global warming thing, though. Nuclear winter and regrowth of abandoned areas will likely sequester incredible amounts of carbon dioxide. Or hell, maybe we can just try and avoid that at any - any - cost? Just throwing that out there. For instance, do we know that carbon sequestration technology - if we can get a handle on mitigation - can't be vastly improved or efficiencies increased? It makes sense to me when the resource crunch starts happening, that we would explore nuclear fission and fusion alternatives to produce incredible amounts of power, the surplus of which to be used at great carbon sequestration plants. I mean, it seems fairly obvious to me that there aren't very many other ways of doing it, since it will take more than the energy produced by the carbon emissions in the first place to sequester that carbon anew, doesn't it? Any physicists itt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:04
|
|
