|
Well, if someone could figure out how to refine aluminum without taking a shitton of energy, that could drop it from being 5% or so of the entire U.S. electrical consumption. Little things like that would help. So far, no dice, though.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Well, if someone could figure out how to refine aluminum without taking a shitton of energy, that could drop it from being 5% or so of the entire U.S. electrical consumption. It uses electricity so just go nuclear, that's another 5% of GHG emissions removed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
How do we convince people that it is a good thing to depopulate? We would have to convince a large amount of people to have less children, how does someone go about this? How are others prevented from having a ton of children just because they feel like it or want to spurn the voluntary depopulaters? How do we convince other countries to depopulate as well? If people volunteer, will it be enforced in some way or is it just hoping they want to save the environment and will stick to it? Once depopulation starts decreasing the population how do we deal with the smaller labor force? Our economy is dependent on a lot of people doing a lot of jobs. Its not possible to automate all or even most of it. Many jobs require quite a bit of labor, such as road repair and construction. What if we lose enough labor force so that this becomes untenable? Since there are far fewer children than old people in this scenario, who takes care of the old people who need care? Is one person going to have to attend more people than they can efficiently? Are the elderly who need care simply going to have to accept they will need to be placed in care facilities or have a decreased quality of life because more personnel simply do not exist? The same question but about hospitals; doctors, nurses? Many jobs will become so high labor with fewer and fewer people to fill them in the interim that they will be next to impossible? What about maintaining shipping and trucking and many other jobs that global economy requires? What about maintaining our infrastructure? Our power plants? Our farms? Suddenly there aren't enough people around for many businesses, forcing people to move closer to major population centers simply to find work. Do we simply shrink our population's spatial footprint as well? In the long term this seems like a good idea in the interim this seems like its going to cause incredible problems. At what pace would we have to shrink our population to prevent further then 3 C warming? Is it possible to shrink a that pace with voluntary depopulation? If not what is the back-plan?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Create some kind of reproductive rights trading platform. Maybe every couple gets by default the right to a single child and can buy or sell rights. Forced abortions for people that breach this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Create some kind of reproductive rights trading platform. yes, just what we need, babytrader.com
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Who are these magical people that improve the environment by grace of having been born? Your claim was that ecologically minded people not having children "seems like it will only make things worse", so you must believe either that each of their children will take more CO2 from the atmosphere than they produce, and/or that non-eco-friendly people will choose to have extra children to compensate. Placid Marmot posted:I think you might actually be stupid. ---------- BattleMoose posted:drat this thread got doomy and gloomy overnight. Let me offer a potential way where not everything gets totally hosed. You've given us a 65% reduction in carbon emissions. Assume I take your argument at face value, boom, bang, done. Can you provide some evidence this results in an outcome other than everything getting totally hosed? Because 35% of current emissions on top of everything we've already emitted still seems to add up to "incredibly hosed", doesn't it? I want to believe, I really do. Please convince me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
The depressing thing about the US Prez elections is that wrt climate change, you have to decide between a candidate that believes that GCC is an invention of China and one that pays lip service to the notion of it but will gleefully push for TPP and TTIP that will lead to increased emissions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Honestly I don't think he's stupid, just horrifically depressed. That's usually what you find when you talk to people who unironically suggest depopulation as a method to save the planet. There's nothing to suggest depopulation would do anything to mitigate or prevent climate change, but it sure is a hell of a good way to feel vindicated if your take on climate change is "gently caress the human race".shrike82 posted:The depressing thing about the US Prez elections is that wrt climate change, you have to decide between a candidate that believes that GCC is an invention of China and one that pays lip service to the notion of it but will gleefully push for TPP and TTIP that will lead to increased emissions. It can't be understated how insane it is that in 2016 Hillary Clinton is calling for a new manhattan project... about creating an encryption standard governments can surveil. Like I said earlier in the thread, if it wasn't so comically absurd it would be sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:---------- There is this weird idea that there is this concept of "incredibly hosed" and that things *cannot be worse* than incredibly hosed. We are somewhere on the spectrum of between "everything is okay" and "every human is dead". Incredibly hosed does not mean, everyone dies. I certainly don't believe there is any scenario that will lead to everyone being dead. So, lets do what we can and try and gently caress ourselves, less? Its not exactly a huge message of hope but the reality is that we really just don't know what or how things are going to happen. Emitting less carbon is still the most reasonable thing to be doing and we can emit a lot less without huge distributions to our lifestyles. Also, in a circumstance with hugely abundant energy, as the hope with fusion is, it makes taking carbon out of the atmosphere, *a much more practical scenario*.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Create some kind of reproductive rights trading platform. Maybe every couple gets by default the right to a single child and can buy or sell rights. Who would handle the forced abortions
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Its not exactly a huge message of hope but the reality is that we really just don't know what or how things are going to happen. Unfortunately we know enough at this point to accept that given the actions taken over the past 40 years, there's nothing we can do to gently caress ourselves less. The feedback loops present in the Earth system we simply cannot stop and it's already too late to try. quote:Emitting less carbon is still the most reasonable thing to be doing and we can emit a lot less without huge distributions to our lifestyles. I disagree and would like to see a plan put forth that involved "emitting less carbon" in any significant way that doesn't have a huge impact on lifestyles (assuming you meant impact when you said distribution) to the point where it is effectively politically impossible. I've still been waiting for Trabinoskfs plan after this post but I'll clue you in on something, that plan doesn't exist, never will, and I've been waiting to hear about it for the past decade and a half. It's only getting harder to make it, so what are they waiting for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The feedback loops present in the Earth system we simply cannot stop and it's already too late to try. We absolutely do not know that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:We absolutely do not know that. Do you have a plan to stop the melting of Greenland or the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets? How about thawing of the permafrost? Tropospheric moistening? Wildfires? Ocean acidification? I mean, I'd love to hear one that doesn't involve a time machine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I am feeling much better, thank you. Though my point still stands.  I take it back, I'm glad your here and not dead. I just get frustrated sometimes talking about climate change with people who have given up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Who would handle the forced abortions Just get mobile vans operated by Planned Parenthood like they do in China
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you have a plan to stop the melting of Greenland or the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheets? How about thawing of the permafrost? Tropospheric moistening? Wildfires? Ocean acidification? I mean, I'd love to hear one that doesn't involve a time machine. You are shifting goal posts here. My comment was simply a statement on the current state of human knowledge. We do not know if we have reached a tipping point or not. We do not know when we might. And you do not know if the feedback loops at this point are unstoppable. And you asserting that they are is you presenting your personal opinion as fact. Don't do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You are shifting goal posts here. My comment was simply a statement on the current state of human knowledge. We do not know if we have reached a tipping point or not. We do not know when we might. Yeah I actually do because I'm capable of reading the science and drawing a logical conclusion. What do you think "the tipping point" will look like? Do you think the scientists clamoring that "we need to act NOW or it's too late" have been lying to you for the past 30 years?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:There is this weird idea that there is this concept of "incredibly hosed" and that things *cannot be worse* than incredibly hosed. We are somewhere on the spectrum of between "everything is okay" and "every human is dead". Incredibly hosed does not mean, everyone dies. I certainly don't believe there is any scenario that will lead to everyone being dead. So, lets do what we can and try and gently caress ourselves, less? Its not exactly a huge message of hope but the reality is that we really just don't know what or how things are going to happen. Emitting less carbon is still the most reasonable thing to be doing and we can emit a lot less without huge distributions to our lifestyles. "Incredibly hosed" was your language. To quote yourself: BattleMoose posted:You are shifting goal posts here. You said "Let me offer a potential way where not everything gets totally hosed." and then offered your way. I asked you to explain how that way results in us not being totally hosed. And this is your response? Wow. I mean really, loving wow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah I actually do because I'm capable of reading the science The science does not say that. I cannot be more direct. @GlyphGryph What just happened? Some people have been expressing the idea that things are so bad that its pointless doing anything, I think I incorrectly confused you to be one of them? There is a great deal we can do to reduce our emissions particularly with the use of fusion power, I thought I explained what that might look like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The science does not say that. I cannot be more direct. So just to be clear, you don't think Greenland's ice sheet is melting, you don't think the collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice shelf is possible, the permafrost won't melt, the water vapor in the troposphere won't trap more heat as temperatures rise, you don't think the severity of wildfires will continue to increase, or that the Ocean is acidifying. The science does not support that any of these things are positive feedback loops that have already begun? Like where is the science that supports the idea that we can do anything about it? That's what I'm still waiting to see. BattleMoose posted:Some people have been expressing the idea that things are so bad that its pointless doing anything I'd like you to show me one person who's saying that in this thread where it isn't an offhanded joke comment. Recognizing that collective action is not capable of saving us does not mean "it's pointless to do anything" NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So just to be clear, you don't think Greenland's ice sheet is melting, you don't think the collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice shelf is possible, the permafrost won't melt, the water vapor in the troposphere won't trap more heat as temperatures rise, you don't think the severity of wildfires will continue to increase, or that the Ocean is acidifying. The science does not support that any of these things are positive feedback loops that have already begun? You claimed the feedback loops are UNSTOPPABLE. You then cite existing feedback loops, yes they exist. But their existence does not make them UNSTOPPABLE. You made a claim that is not supported by evidence and you are being called out on it. That is what is happening. You are then trying to push the onus on me to prove the alternative. I am not claiming that the feedbacks are either stoppable or unstoppable, I don't know. And neither do you. I cannot prove one way or the other. And neither can you. So quit making claims you don't have evidence for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You claimed the feedback loops are UNSTOPPABLE. You then cite existing feedback loops, yes they exist. But their existence does not make them UNSTOPPABLE. You made a claim that is not supported by evidence and you are being called out on it. That is what is happening. Given what a positive feedback loop is (and the scale it's occurring on), there's absolutely no reason to think it is capable of being stopped without someone putting forth an idea that it's possible to do so. Yes, I am pushing the onus on you to prove the alternative because that's all you've ever had to do. Show me one plan or shred of evidence that suggests we can stop those processes and I will admit they probably can be stopped. I really don't see what the point is in pretending like miracle technologies just appearing before us is a valid possibility we can't ignore. Fusion power? Seriously? You simply cannot ignore the body of work w/r/t climate science and conclude we are anything but hosed when it comes to collective global action. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Is there a word for being fanatically pro-science while also misunderstanding the fundamentals of it? You don't believe the science huh? Well go ahead, prove a negative HA got you now!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Given what a positive feedback loop is (and the scale it's occurring on), there's absolutely no reason to think it is capable of being stopped without someone putting forth an idea that it's possible to do so. The climate system is super complicated. There are positive feedback loops. There are also many negative feedback loops. The warmer the Earth system gets, the more heat is radiated away. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the more carbon is absorbed by vegetation. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the more carbon is absorbed by the oceans. The initiation of a new positive feedback loop doesn't necessarily mean the worst is about to happen. quote:Yes, I am pushing the onus on you to prove the alternative because that's all you've ever had to do. Show me one plan or shred of evidence that suggests we can stop those processes and I will admit they probably can be stopped. I really don't see what the point is in pretending like miracle technologies just appearing before us is a valid possibility we can't ignore. Fusion power? Seriously? I am just a guy on the internet who is pointing out that their claims you are making are not supported by science or scientific evidence. I will continue to do that. That is certainly more than I need to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The climate system is super complicated. There are positive feedback loops. There are also many negative feedback loops. The warmer the Earth system gets, the more heat is radiated away. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the more carbon is absorbed by vegetation. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the more carbon is absorbed by the oceans. The initiation of a new positive feedback loop doesn't necessarily mean the worst is about to happen. Look if you feel comfortable looking at the science out there and saying "it's super complicated, we don't really know", that's fine. I simply do not view it that way. I'll ask you and others again, we're all the scientists over the past 40 years (and to this day) who espoused "we need to act NOW or it's too late" lying?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You simply cannot ignore the body of work w/r/t climate science and conclude we are anything but hosed when it comes to collective global action. For the sake of clearer communication, could you elaborate on this? It does seem obvious that a lot of people are going to die in the coming century, but is 100 million a lot? 1 billion? 5 billion? 10? The average quality of life will drop, but by how much? What will the standard of living look like? Will there be WWII style rationing of food and such or will major western countries totally collapse from famine? Obviously this all exists on a spectrum. And even the realistic "best case" is objectively bad. But when you say "we're hosed," what average situation are you picturing? What spread of outcomes seems most likely to you? Say by the year 2100.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Look if you feel comfortable looking at the science out there and saying "it's super complicated, we don't really know", that's fine. I simply do not view it that way. What if climate change was a continuum of outcomes and not a boolean state of doom? When you say that "there's nothing we can do to gently caress ourselves less" it reminds me of an alcoholic explaining why the next bottle is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:For the sake of clearer communication, could you elaborate on this? It does seem obvious that a lot of people are going to die in the coming century, but is 100 million a lot? 1 billion? 5 billion? 10? The average quality of life will drop, but by how much? What will the standard of living look like? Will there be WWII style rationing of food and such or will major western countries totally collapse from famine? Obviously this all exists on a spectrum. And even the realistic "best case" is objectively bad. But when you say "we're hosed," what average situation are you picturing? What spread of outcomes seems most likely to you? Say by the year 2100. When I say we're hosed I mean that the collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable and that due to that fact alone, any sort of collective action at this point that attempts to "stop Climate Change" or "hold it to under 2C" is woefully misguided if they have any goal of success. Until the developed nations who created this problem in the first place are actually honest about it, absolutely nothing will change. Now, like I've said before, the window for that change to actually prevent a 4C+ raise in global temperature has passed. So at this point we're talking adaptation and minimization of suffering. Reducing emissions should be a part of that plan, but honestly emissions are going to be the least of our problems sooner than later and the more quickly we accept that fact the more quickly we can move past that and start working on ensuring the survival of the human race. Salt Fish posted:What if climate change was a continuum of outcomes and not a boolean state of doom? When you say that "there's nothing we can do to gently caress ourselves less" it reminds me of an alcoholic explaining why the next bottle is irrelevant. Once it gets bad enough the unknown unknowns take over and any sort of long term planning goes out the window. The sooner we accept that it happens to be the situation we're in the better. edit. And again, I'd like to point out that I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love to see a realistic plan that involves peaking at 2C and a baseline of under 1C but nothing I've read anywhere has led me to believe that's even the most remote of possibilities. Past 2C we are talking guaranteed positive feedback loop takeover (whether or not you want to admit it there's a reason 2C was chosen as a limit and it's not because the number 2 is pretty) and again, emissions effectively stop mattering. Ensuring we're putting enough aerosols in the air to survive, somehow saving the phytoplankton in the ocean, figuring out a way to provide food to the people when industrial agriculture fails, dealing with a exponentially worsening refugee crisis, these are the problems that will start mattering and honestly should be the problems we're talking about now, not irrelevant treaties that do nothing. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:For the sake of clearer communication, could you elaborate on this? It does seem obvious that a lot of people are going to die in the coming century, but is 100 million a lot? 1 billion? 5 billion? 10? The average quality of life will drop, but by how much? What will the standard of living look like? Will there be WWII style rationing of food and such or will major western countries totally collapse from famine? Obviously this all exists on a spectrum. And even the realistic "best case" is objectively bad. But when you say "we're hosed," what average situation are you picturing? What spread of outcomes seems most likely to you? Say by the year 2100. I don't know how relevant it still is, but Gwynne Dyer has a few talks on what he expects in terms of geopolitical outcomes of even 2-3C on our food supply and it isn't very pretty. He might be wrong, but as I said I think the uncertainty is that we're too conservative, not that we're too bold with our predictions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:When I say we're hosed I mean that the collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable And this is where your personal opinion diverges away from scientific basis yet again. Even under BAU these fantasies about collapse of industrial civilization in the foreseeable future is nonsensical when you consider the actual mechanics of collapse rather than just panic. Why would we stop manufacturing poo poo exactly? Because *~*CHAOS RULES*~* or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'll ask you and others again, we're all the scientists over the past 40 years (and to this day) who espoused "we need to act NOW or it's too late" lying? That's not exactly what they said. Quoting. 2005, Joint science academies statement, Global response to climate change quote:Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades. Even with possible lowered emission rates we will be experiencing the impacts of climate change throughout the 21st century and beyond. Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future. At no point do they mention the idea of "acting now or its too late". If you have credible joint statements of the best science minds on the planet, stating what you think they said, then do that. But they never said what you are claiming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And this is where your personal opinion diverges away from scientific basis yet again. We would stop manufacturing poo poo because there wouldn't be enough food to feed the people who work in the factories. Nobody would want an iPhone when they can't afford a loaf of bread. There's really tons of science out there on what exactly the mechanics of a collapse would look like, even provided one for you earlier in this thread: http://noahraford.com/?p=48 If you don't think industrial civilization can even collapse I can totally see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, it can and will. Not a question of if, but of when. And not centuries, but decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty skeptical of science by political committee (e.g., Paris Protocol, IPCC) when they tend to lie about targets - look at Paris aiming for +1.5C by 2100 when we're are at +1.6C today. Kinda hilarious if you think about it
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:At no point do they mention the idea of "acting now or its too late". If you have credible joint statements of the best science minds on the planet, stating what you think they said, then do that. But they never said what you are claiming. The "credible joint statements of the best science minds on the planets" would literally never be allowed to publish a paper that says "it's too late, we're hosed, brace for impact". If you don't think "act now before it's too late" hasn't been the general consensus for the last 30 years among climate scientists I don't really know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
If what you are saying is correct, what can be done?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:If what you are saying is correct, what can be done? To stop the collapse of industrialized civilization? To stop 4C of warming? Nothing. What can be done to alleviate suffering? Start prioritizing alternative food production technologies TODAY. Start decentralizing the grid TODAY. We need to move back to more localized forms of living because globalization is on the way out. It's about softening the fall at this point, not preventing it. We need to start preparing people today for the reality of tomorrow because if they aren't ready when it hits, it really will be the chaos that you read about in the "worst case scenarios".
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:When I say we're hosed I mean that the collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable Hmm, interesting. Maybe you could back this up? Surely, if you're so confident, it must be the consensus. Or at least a majority or plurality position? I'd like to see the climate literature survey or meta-analysis that concludes "industrial civilization will definitely collapse." Or, really, the many of them that such a confident statement would imply. Or maybe you could post that TV show clip again, where Toby from the Office (in character as the deadpan depressed man) delivers a bunch of cringe-worthy Sorkin-isms. Including a bit about "storms that permanently blacken the sky." That will convince people. Or a random dude's blog. Or you could claim that there's a conspiracy - the scientists and policy analysits you are so sure agree with you "would literally never be allowed" to do so in pubilc! You are grossly over reacting. Your "inevitable" future is a possibility, but it's on the "very bad and fairly unlikely" end of the spectrum. It does not comprise the entirety of possible outcomes, as you claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:It does not comprise the entirety of possible outcomes, as you claim. It's the only outcome if nothing changes 20 years ago, and it didn't. So, here we are. Unless you've got some evidence that suggest otherwise I'm going to go ahead and assume that the Co2 we've already put into the atmosphere will continue to warm the planet which will put us over 2C for a sustained period of time, causing the myriad of feedback loops we have scientific evidence for that are the basis for the 2C target in the first place. Again, it's the only outcome which is realistic given the scenario we are in. Nobody can even come up with a plausible way to stop it at this point, how bad does it have to get before we accept it's not coming and begin the actual hard work of addressing reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The "credible joint statements of the best science minds on the planets" would literally never be allowed to publish a paper that says "it's too late, we're hosed, brace for impact". If you don't think "act now before it's too late" hasn't been the general consensus for the last 30 years among climate scientists I don't really know what to tell you. You could tell me what they are actually saying. You are literally taking your own personal interpretation of what is being said and presenting it as fact. And getting called out on it, again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
I guess I can understand the emotional response of these drive-by posts: "all this must be alarmism" because in other spheres of life, things can typically be fixed. But in the case of AGC, that's not the case unfortunatelyCranappleberry posted:If what you are saying is correct, what can be done? 1) Voluntary depopulation 2) Reduced consumption (e.g., meat products, cheap manufacturing of disposable goods) 3) Shift to 100% Funny how all three solutions are verboten by climate minimisers
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:58
|
|