|
So... we're chill? Phew.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
blowfish posted:What do you think changing global trends looks like, swinging things around within the day? It's blindingly obvious that even if things are a rousing success, you'll first slow down, then stop, then start going in the other direction slowly, then go faster. Given that we're starting to live in a world where we should've done more about climate change earlier, that we're levelling out is an encouraging sign that it's still possible to limit the level of suck we're heading for. This is a good attitude. Also, clean energy is the way of the future and will become more common, their momentum might be slowed a bit by Trump but now is a better time than any to vocally advocate and support it and also to support opposition to projects that will cause huge emissions like the Dayton thing and new highways. There are people in congress who are saying they will fight against climate change and not cooperate with Trump's policies on it but they will be much more effective if they have support from us. There's also lawsuits discussed earlier that might be an effective way of delaying unfavorable projects while our science and technology improves. Climate can also be unpredictable, 2015 saw huge gains of ice in the Antarctic. Fansy posted:Just started a monthly donation. This is good too. yellowyams fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Bolded is literally the thing you have advocated in this thread, no? You aren't just predicting that we likely aren't going to make meaningful strides, you are openly advocating that a) we shouldn't do anything and b) it would be useless even if we did. You're right, sometimes in making a point rhetorically I say you shouldn't do anything because it won't actually happen. That's the nature of should. We should enact radical mitigation efforts. We won't, so people shouldn't waste their time advocating it. See the distinction? I know you don't like it and it offends you but you are wasting your time. We should, but we shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:You're right, sometimes in making a point rhetorically I say you shouldn't do anything because it won't actually happen. That's the nature of should. We should enact radical mitigation efforts. We won't, so people shouldn't waste their time advocating it. See the distinction? I know you don't like it and it offends you but you are wasting your time. We should, but we shouldn't. You have absolutely no idea what scientific innovations might come in the future or what unexpected factors might change the game. We are at a point when stopping acceleration is more crucial than ever for that to happen. At the very least don't use the thread to tell people not to stop climate change when the thread is specifically about stopping climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:You're right, sometimes in making a point rhetorically I say you shouldn't do anything because it won't actually happen. That's the nature of should. We should enact radical mitigation efforts. We won't, so people shouldn't waste their time advocating it. See the distinction? I know you don't like it and it offends you but you are wasting your time. We should, but we shouldn't. There are a few things I'd genuinely like to hear more about, because this is a coherent statement (not one I personally hold, but not incoherent). First, what is the probability you'd estimate for the chances of minimally impactful climate mitigation? It sounds like you are skeptical of "real" progress (and perhaps think we haven't changed projected temperature increases much at all?). A literal (disingenuous?) reading of your posts would be that you think there is exactly a 0.0 probability of meaningful action, but I think you're too smart to claim perfect knowledge of the future - there's always a chance that our predictions are wrong! So what are the chances you might be surprised? 1%? 5%? 20%? Mind you, this isn't probability of "solving climate change". I'm asking about the probability of reducing the expected value of the long-term temperature increase by an amount discernable from chance (a minimally projectable amount). By comparison, what would you say is the lowest probability of meaningful action where you would feel like people should try to advocate for mitigation? 20%? 50%? 90%? I gather that you're holding your position because the first value is lower than the second, but I'd like to know just how vast you feel like the divide is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
So the North Pole might have been at or above freezing today. You know, just to contribute to all of the good news. Central Oklahoma hasn't even had a loving freeze yet. It's halfway through NOVEMBER, and the closest possibility until December ?? is the end of this week. Usually it's in mid-late October. e: I know I know, weather and all - and Oklahoma is especially schizophrenic - but it was in the 80s today. Aren't there wildfires and poo poo out East? Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:So the North Pole might have been at or above freezing today. Couldn't anyone make a big news story out of this? I haven't seen any of the climate change groups making much of an effort to spread info on what's going on with the Arctic right now. The only reason I even know is because of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:So the North Pole might have been at or above freezing today. Well we haven't had an actual real winter in ~8 years now and I live in Lithuania and we should by all means be getting actual winters and not +8 and rain in late december... poo poo is already freaking weird in northern latitudes, REALLY weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Yeah. It's odd that it has been more mild overall here... less cold and hot weather.yellowyams posted:Couldn't anyone make a big news story out of this? I haven't seen any of the climate change groups making much of an effort to spread info on what's going on with the Arctic right now. The only reason I even know is because of this thread. I made note of it here. It seemed to have been met with a collective meh overall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Yeah. It's odd that it has been more mild overall here... less cold and hot weather. I think a city needs to flood before people will realize the seriousness of the issue. Arctic sheet ice or even the above-average temperature are just too abstract. Is it something you can see bringing up in casual conversation and getting anything other than a shrug? Although pictures of sad polar bears might tip the scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I think a city needs to flood before people will realize the seriousness of the issue. Arctic sheet ice or even the above-average temperature are just too abstract. Is it something you can see bringing up in casual conversation and getting anything other than a shrug? That drat chart from earlier in the thread scared the gently caress out of me and I was not particularly concerned about climate change until a week ago. I would try to spread that around. Even if your eyes glaze over at "global ice area" the huge diversion from pattern is a big wake up call. yellowyams fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:That drat chart from earlier in the thread scared the gently caress out of me and I was not particularly concerned about climate change until a week ago. I would try to spread that around. Even if your eyes glaze over at "global ice area" the huge diversion from pattern is a big wake up call. I mean, that just means you possess a modicum of self awareness and the capability to handle chain of consequence thinking. Unfortunately, critical thinking in terms of "A leads to B which could cause C" is shockingly lacking in most people even when it will directly and immediately cause them harm. Anything abstract or long term goes right out the window. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Rime posted:Better to just kill yourself then, dawg, because your comfy first world lifestyle on a daily basis requires both of those to perpetually increase. How many kids died mining cobalt in the Congo so that you could type from that high horse? You eat some tasty imported fruit this week? Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with you. Considerably less than is wrong with our biosphere, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:I mean, that just means you possess a modicum of self awareness and the capability to handle chain of consequence thinking. Underestimating everyone around you is no good, there's no penalty for trying. And if you convince even one more person it could turn into this: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Abstract Arctic Ice: Having an ice free summertime Arctic will have surprisingly very few human impacts and I think primarily for this reason that it doesn't get much attention. It did get a lot of attention back in 2007 when there was a large diversion from the mean of ice extent. It might mess up ocean currents somewhat but I really don't know nearly enough about that or likelihoods or what not but I haven't seen many people at all saying, "we should care about arctic ice for (these reasons)!" There's the ice-albedo feedback loop but that's been working for decades already. Himalayan ice on the other hand, the melt of which directly feeds the Ganges and Yangtze rivers, on which hundreds of millions of people depend. When that ice melts we will get stupid floods during the rainy seasons and severely depressed water levels during the dry season. It scares me. Similar to the photo, "Earth Rise", maybe a picture of an ice free Arctic will be able to galvanise action, much too late but here's hoping. Tipping points: Global climate change models don't model them, at all. As far as I know, we just have no idea when. Looking back at historical climate shifts, they can be extremely strong though (Dansgaard–Oeschger events). quote:For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, Wiki.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:There are a few things I'd genuinely like to hear more about, because this is a coherent statement (not one I personally hold, but not incoherent). I like that formulation, it goes to the heart of my cynicism and warms it. I think the chances that there is meaningful climate mitigation enacted in the next ten years is probably in the 1% range. Like you, I'm just using these numbers rhetorically and not because I have some bayesian tree figured out, meaning I would be honestly surprised by it. For it to be worth the investment in my time, and therefore meet a standard such that I could tell people who are asking that they should do something, it should be in the 10%+ range, which is to say, unlikely and hard but achievable. Since we all hate analogies so much, it's like free climbing Half Dome. Is it impossible? No. Could I do it? Well, yeah, theoretically, but would I actually invest all this time and effort trying to get everything together to do it? No. Would I suggest, if someone came to me and said maybe they could free climb Half Dome that they could? No. I'd tell them it's a fool's errand. Could they prove me wrong? Yes. Am I presenting my position as too many questions? It seems like it. Look, I don't want people to stop trying, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pretend like it's feasible anymore. And while it's been argued in this thread and in the climate science community that this is functionally the same as a climate denial position, I think we're at the point where anything climate-related is going to be a waste of everyone's time. I think for me the nail in the coffin was not Trump but actually the lack of any attention to climate change whatsoever throughout the election. It just demonstrated to me that the task was so fundamental in nature, and the state of the damage so advanced, that any position is functionally the same. We're just signaling now, it's all performative. You care more about climate than other people, that's now just an identity statement. That person over there thinks climate change is hooey, that's just another identity statement. I simply cannot comprehend how we could so change the minds of the populace to enact meaningful reform within the current socio-political system. I think that's why we're at the point of jokingly referring to "If you were god-emperor..." Because inherently we know that modern liberal democratic politics cannot deal with a problem like climate change. I hope I'm wrong, but don't expect me, or people like me, to lie about it, or waste my time trying to convince these idiots. Since this has turned into a dumb effort post on a dumb gay dead comedy forum, I guess the reason I keep posting is because I hate the delusional quality of it. If people posting were saying, "I know we're probably 99% hosed, but I'm going to try anyway because I'm a romantic idealist" then I wouldn't feel the need to argue. I'd go find something else important to argue about, like whether or not Dwarf Fortress should model feces. It's dumb, I'm dumb, this whole thing is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
I know we're probably 99% hosed, but I'm going to try anyways because the projected consequences are so abhorrent that as long as there is the tiniest bit of hope then trying is the only moral/ethical position to hold. I am also unreasonably optimistic, because that's how I cope.
BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I know we're probably 99% hosed, but I'm going to try anyways because the projected consequences are so abhorrent that as long as there is the tiniest bit of hope then trying is the only moral/ethical position to hold. I am also unreasonably optimistic, because that's hope I cope. Can you unironically list everything you are going to try? Are you, like, quitting your job and doing nothing else trying or posting on Facebook or what is "trying" by the metrics of all the "never stop trying" zealots in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Can you unironically list everything you are going to try? Are you, like, quitting your job and doing nothing else trying or posting on Facebook or what is "trying" by the metrics of all the "never stop trying" zealots in this thread? Currently working on precipitation projections for California in 2100 using CMIP5 data based on the RCP8.5. scenario. Also huge cyclist advocate and don't own a car (private car ownership is silly). It annoys my family.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
drat, well, I, like, drive a Prius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Oh yeah, it's been awhile since one of these was posted: https://twitter.com/ahaveland/status/798184605748600834 e: Note that this doesn't have November 2016, which is the current concern; 2016 is below all previous November measurements. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You say "leveling off", I say "continuing to increase despite huge technological advances and deep knowledge of the problem of ACC" uh check the article please, yearly emissions have been pretty much static for the past 3 years. i know you want to jerk off about how hosed we are, and i agree that our emissions rates are really loving high and it'll be a challenge to lower them fast enough... but the facts are that emissions rates have been globally static for the past 3 years
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Unironically take your meds. also this tbqh
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I like that formulation, it goes to the heart of my cynicism and warms it. I think the chances that there is meaningful climate mitigation enacted in the next ten years is probably in the 1% range. Like you, I'm just using these numbers rhetorically and not because I have some bayesian tree figured out, meaning I would be honestly surprised by it. For it to be worth the investment in my time, and therefore meet a standard such that I could tell people who are asking that they should do something, it should be in the 10%+ range, which is to say, unlikely and hard but achievable. I hear you. I appreciate you taking the time to effort post - it's considerate of you to do so despite the hostility I threw your way. I don't have a really great answer for the first value either. I actually don't even think the 1% chance of change you estimated is that implausible. I think the chances of measureable impact is perhaps a lot higher if the IPCC are anywhere close to correct (as in, it may only require moderate steps by, say, California and New York plus the Scandanavian countries and we lower the projected long-term temperature increase by something discernable from chance), but "meaningful" change in the sense of keeping us below ~3-4C might certainly be down around 1%. Maybe even lower! Who knows? But I do want to talk about how I think of the second value (the threshold at which I think it makes sense to act). I find it hard to make a hard value-judgments about percentages like this. What makes it easier for me to organize my thoughts around "what does motivation look like" is to actually think about things in terms of expected value directly, and then work backwards to the probability threshold. The expected value of climate mitigation is just a simple combination of two things: a) the probability that the mitigation happens, and b) the impact that the mitigation has if it does. The former is something we ballparked already - let's call it 1% chance to keep us at 3C for the next 100 years. Now, all we need to do is estimate the difference between a world without mitigation and world with meaningful mitigation that does work. My understanding of the literature is that the business-as-usual scenario is unspeakably horrendous. A catastrophe almost beyond imagining. The difference between a 3C scenario and a 7-8C scenario is so vast, it almost defies comprehension. The value, to me, of keeping us at 3C instead of 7-8C is something that I would give literally anything for. It is that valuable. It would be worth all of my money, all of my earthly possessions, and the value of every waking hour I have left until I die, and that would barely scratch the surface. This exercise works better if we're more concrete, so lets say that if a genie popped out and offered keep us to the 3C scenario, we humans would be willing to pay it, what, 10 trillion dollars? That's a nice round number. Let's use that. Using these numbers - the 1% chance of meaningful mitigation, times the $10trillion valuation of what "meaningful" mitigation would look like - and we get an expected value of about $100 billion. That's the degree to which it would be logical for the world to be collectively investing in climate mitigation right now if it believed the 1% chance and $10 trillion valuation as well. And let's also say that I don't want to (or think I can) address meaningful climate mitigation on my own. Let's say I think we'd need at least a million people to kick the gears of bureaucracy into sufficient action. And let's say I value the time of all these people at about $40 an hour. One hour is a collective $40 million. Let's say I think it takes these million people 1000 hours each before there is even a minimal chance to achieve meaningful mitigation. That's a combined $40 billion value. Now we can use the same equation, but in the other direction. What's the probability of meaningful mitigation that would cause the expected value to exceed $40 billion? We solve it. 40,000,000,000 = p(mitigation)*10,000,000,000,000. We get p(mitigation) = 0.004. In this handwavy back-of-the-envelope formulation, my threshold for personal action is a 0.004% chance of meaningful climate mitigation. That's the break-even point where it becomes too much work to be worth it, and we might as well do something else with our time. I don't think the scientists are anywhere close to that wrong about our chances. There is no way in hell I am literally 99.996% certain that we are doomed to 7-8C. You, the skeptic, think our chances are three orders of magnitude better than that. That's why I fight. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:uh check the article please, yearly emissions have been pretty much static for the past 3 years. i know you want to jerk off about how hosed we are, and i agree that our emissions rates are really loving high and it'll be a challenge to lower them fast enough... but the facts are that emissions rates have been globally static for the past 3 years It's like just showing up to run a race where the rest of the participants are nearing the finish line. And democracies aren't exactly The Flash. The climate, on the other hand...: quote:At the end of October and the beginning of November the PV underwent an unprecedented early split. The PV has since remained relatively weak and the models are predicting further weakening with more aggressive model forecasts predicting a major mid-winter warming before the month of November concludes. I question whether the PV will enter MMW territory before month’s end (the earliest MMW observed is currently November 30th 1958) but regardless further weakening appears likely. The potential for Sudden Stratospheric Warming. Always a blast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
I'm going to contact the guy that used to be the energy reporter at my local radio station tomorrow, he might have some connections that could spread this better. There are people whose job is to report on stuff like this so if you can find their contact information and give them a call then at the very least it wouldn't hurt anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Telling people is nice and all. Here's something to tell them - the city of Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska recorded 30.1 degrees Fahrenheit average temperature for the month of October. It sits 320 miles into the Arctic Circle, and its average temperature was barely under freezing. On October 10th, it reached 44 degrees Fahrenheit for a new record high. Oh - one other thing - its 1981-2010 average temperature for October was 17.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Fahrenheit. If you want this to mean anything to non US people, you really need to convert to Celsius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Non-U.S. people generally accept that poo poo is hosed. Evil_Greven posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
God drat it, this thread is going to give me a psychotic break, anyway http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steyer-idUSKBN13A2RN I think we will resort to geoengineering at some point but science and tech may surprise us in the future so funding is always good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Nah we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Currently working on precipitation projections for California in 2100 using CMIP5 data based on the RCP8.5. scenario. Unfortunately, in much of the US owning a car is prerequisite to being any kind of functional member of society. I'm counting down the days to the glorious future of autonomous electric cars so I can finally stop owning one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Unfortunately, in much of the US owning a car is prerequisite to being any kind of functional member of society. I'm counting down the days to the glorious future of autonomous electric cars so I can finally stop owning one. They say that about Australia too, gently caress em.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Unfortunately, in much of the US owning a car is prerequisite to being any kind of functional member of society. I'm counting down the days to the glorious future of autonomous electric cars so I can finally stop owning one. I just made my pricey car payment again. I haven't driven in two weeks. My partner hasn't in three. Since we moved to the city, it gets used far less. We need a vehicle around for camping/hiking trips, visiting family, etc though I wish it wasn't a lease so we could decrease our monthly expenditure. $500/mo including insurance turns real expensive when you only drive once a week average.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
its no big deal posted:I just made my pricey car payment again. I haven't driven in two weeks. My partner hasn't in three. Since we moved to the city, it gets used far less. We need a vehicle around for camping/hiking trips, visiting family, etc though Hiring a car for those events might well be cheaper. There are a number of services springing up these days connecting (real) people who are able to rent out their car and people who want to. Can be much cheaper than traditional car rentals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Airbnb for cars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Hiring a car for those events might well be cheaper. There are a number of services springing up these days connecting (real) people who are able to rent out their car and people who want to. Can be much cheaper than traditional car rentals. I'm of the mind that it would be. The main issue at the moment is that it is a lease with about half of its term left. I think that it would be cheaper for many people in cities to use Uber/Lyft/personal rental/borrow combined with cycling and public transit. I recognize that in rural and suburban communities it isn't as easy. However, I'm of the mind that every person less dependent on a non-electric car for personal transportation means less money for the fossil fuels industry, which is good overall even taking into account the relatively small effects of collective action compared to mass industry (at least as I understand things)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Airbnb for cars? Absolutely, exactly this. quote:I think that it would be cheaper for many people in cities to use Uber/Lyft/personal rental/borrow combined with cycling and public transit. Its how I do it. I don't cycle any more as in Australia I just feel it is too dangerous, Australia has an awful attitude towards cyclists. I actually use uber quiet a lot, but usually always when I have been drinking anyway and owning a car wouldn't be helpful... EDIT: We are still so stuck in the attitude that cars are a status symbol and only poor people don't have cars and public transport is for poor people. :/ (Only a slight exaggeration)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
What the hell did you lease for $500 not including insurance that you only drive once per month or week? Get a hatchback for a third of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 07:26
|
|
