|
shrike82 posted:We'll just annex Canada Haha jokes on you, China and/or Russia will have already claimed us by the time you need to do that!
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
Rime posted:I don't know when you were born, but in 2060 I'll be 87 years old if I'm even still alive. The fact is that climate change won't impact most anyone currently posting on these forums in a Road-esque fashion, and if it did we'll be so old that we can smoke a shotgun guilt free after having had a decent life. It's not going to be the apocalypse, but if we're seriously talking about catastrophic events like the WAIS going for a swim within our lifetime then you can probably expect increasingly severe problems over the next 10-15 years too. There's a lot that's likely to happen in between right now and the end game of coastal cities literally sinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Obviously predicting specific events in the future is impossible, but what would be considered an optimistic projection vs. a pessimistic projection? If even the most optimistic projection has half of Southern Florida underwater along with the massive refugee crisis that implies by ~2060, then I'm going to need to make very different life plans starting right now. Optimistic has the oceans somehow not dying by 2060 and wealthy governments releasing aerosols to stave off global warming, with no serious adverse effects beyond the costs. What you'd expect by then is gradual migrations across the US southwest as the Sonoran has expanded, increased foodstuff costs from changes in climate and water depletion impacting production, a lot of dead Africans and Muslims, and possibly a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. Pessimistic is that the Western Antartic Ice Sheet breaks off between 2020-2040, raising sea levels by 10 inches over the course of months and flooding major cities across the world and prompting large migrations and humanitarian crises on a scale your little primate brain can't imagine, and then when we're releasing aerosols like 80s hair is back and looks like we've got a handle on things, in 2060 we realize the sea is about to loving die and there's absolutely not a thing we can do about it. And that's when things will get fun. EDIT: Oh and the thermohaline circulation could also just shut down, at which point nobody even loving knows. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Yeah seriously it's time to start thinking about 2030, not 2050. Florida will be largely underwater in 15 years, not 50.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
If the US preemptively nukes India and Pakistan can the nuclear winter counteract global warming? It seems a more likely scenario for the Trump admin than carbon emissions reductions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:In 2060 I'd be near retirement age, so I'm way younger than you. On top of that, what about children and grandchildren? I'm nowhere near rich so there's no fancy mob-proof bunker I could pass on to them. If anything we'd probably be part of the mob. I glitched and added 17 years to my age, derp. Really I'd prefer poo poo get heavy before I'm in my forties so that life is interesting and fun again for the first time in like the past half century. Just don't have kids, it's for the best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Pessimistic is that the Western Antartic Ice Sheet breaks off between 2020-2040, raising sea levels by 10 inches over the course of months and flooding major cities across the world and prompting large migrations and humanitarian crises on a scale your little primate brain can't imagine, and then when we're releasing aerosols like 80s hair is back and looks like we've got a handle on things, in 2060 we realize the sea is about to loving die and there's absolutely not a thing we can do about it. Feet, not inches. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone would contribute something like 3-5m to global sea levels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Just wait for the HOT HOT global forest feedbacks. I've only seen a little research on it, but it is a fair bet to say that water quality - to say nothing of quantity - will decline intensely as watershed forests continue to undergo massive disruption. While this may not seem like that big of a deal, many people already do not have very clean or sufficient water, and nutrient rich standing water in virgin territory is a great disease development laboratory. Honestly I'm thinking of just giving up on following this research trajectory. It's been nice keeping up with how insipid we are as a species, and how intractable our dedication to self-destruction is, but it is wearing me the gently caress down and I'm not even a year into the PhD yet. I keep thinking I'll run into or somehow become the scientist that figures out how to trick people into fulfilling their potential as a species - or hell, the potential of the biosphere - but all the charismatic scientists I meet only seem to want to do is convince people of the truth. As if, after that, they will suddenly change. But smokers don't quit when you show them a black lung. Lord knows I didn't. At this point I'd almost just con all my idiot relatives into bank-rolling a prepper/gardener cult compound. It is a shame, though, because if nothing else climate change is radically advancing our ability to understand ecosystem processes, and is forcing huge amounts of money into materials science with profound implications for human biogeochemistry. If some egghead really does figure out a way to fix carbon in a biologically available manner that is both cheap and sustainable, it will be our ticket to whatever planet we choose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Sea Level Rise Looking at the actual changes gives us a reasonable expectations of how things can/could change.  We are at about 1.8mm/year. That could well speed up, by a lot, but, no one really knows for sure. It certainly won't trend down though. The big issue with sea level rise is that it makes hurricanes much more severe, coupled with storm surges and that flooding will make land untenable to live in. At some point there are going to be a tonne of people with properties that they won't be able to sell, its like a stupid gambling game of musical chairs with properties in low lying areas at the moment. Taking 30 years and multiplying that by 1.8mm gives you the absolute best case not at all going to happen scenario with sea level rise. If that will effect your property or just the area near where you live, probably want to start thinking about moving. That;s about 60 mm, that's a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Sea Level Rise Rising sea levels can also infiltrate local aquifers and make the water brackish and unfit for consumption. So, there's that, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:Just wait for the HOT HOT global forest feedbacks. I've only seen a little research on it, but it is a fair bet to say that water quality - to say nothing of quantity - will decline intensely as watershed forests continue to undergo massive disruption. While this may not seem like that big of a deal, many people already do not have very clean or sufficient water, and nutrient rich standing water in virgin territory is a great disease development laboratory. I remember the moment when my optimism was broken. I had done part of my MSc at the atmosphere and oceanic dept and was interviewing at a carbon capture company. It had been founded by a trio of university professors who were trying to transfer out of the lab into the real world. They had been the focus of a few documentaries on Discover and others (back before YouTube or ubiquitous broadband) so I ate those up before the interview. When I arrived they had just got a new round of private funding. All 3 guys also had just gotten shiny new ICE sports cars that they were eager to show off. So we did that for a half day. They were using a very power intensive process to separate the carbon out of the captured material so I asked the obvious question, if they captured more carbon than they ultimately produced. Oh yes, definitely no question. However, the second half of the interview was hooking up a power meter to measure the actual usage of electricity which had never been done before. Totally insane. Also they had extraordinary skepticism about the accuracy of the measurement equipment and asked a ton of questions about how it worked, which made me believe they might actually have hooked it up before and didn't like the results. I checked up on their company a little after that and they had been bought out by some VC company, salaried employees laid off, and patents portfolio'd. I'm doubtful about the tech but it keeps getting resurrected in other countries for test runs seemingly just to dole out carbon credits or fulfill green research requirements. You will probably end up going insane trying to honestly apply yourself to the research if you frame it as an attempt to save the world. You will get poo poo on by both straight up deniers for your concern about emissions and 'greens' for forecasting non-reversible temperature rises, on the same day. But don't have such a short term outlook where the research only applies in the next 30 years. People 400 years from now may use it, maybe even 1000 years from now. The current meta-culture of the human civilization is never going last for an infinite time period, even without global warming. Understanding the physical process of Earth will always be important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
The best you can do is enjoy how nice are things now as the poo poo storm builds on the horizon. You'll at least have some good memories. Also start building a community locally to help rely on each other, whether it's among your friends, neighbors, or relatives who actually don't deny climate change. It's better than sitting alone in your house and FYGM'ing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
What keeps bugging me is that I can do that and go into homestead-mode and grow half of my own food and all the rest of it, but even that kind of life depends on regular and predictable seasons and weather patterns. If those are completely destabilized you won't be able to rely on nature the way we did before technology - we will be out of options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:When I arrived they had just got a new round of private funding. All 3 guys also had just gotten shiny new ICE sports cars that they were eager to show off. So we did that for a half day. They were using a very power intensive process to separate the carbon out of the captured material so I asked the obvious question, if they captured more carbon than they ultimately produced. Oh yes, definitely no question. However, the second half of the interview was hooking up a power meter to measure the actual usage of electricity which had never been done before. Totally insane. Also they had extraordinary skepticism about the accuracy of the measurement equipment and asked a ton of questions about how it worked, which made me believe they might actually have hooked it up before and didn't like the results. lol I'll never stop being amazed by how quickly basic poo poo falls by the wayside when there's something new and shiny and lucrative to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Maybe we should give those guys in Micronesia the nuclear codes, and they could supervillain us in to doing something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Mozi posted:What keeps bugging me is that I can do that and go into homestead-mode and grow half of my own food and all the rest of it, but even that kind of life depends on regular and predictable seasons and weather patterns. If those are completely destabilized you won't be able to rely on nature the way we did before technology - we will be out of options. We are all going to suffer. Might as well not do it alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
The Canadian government has such plans about climate change:The Globe and Mail posted:Ottawa plans to slash carbon emissions through a “clean century growth plan” to string new power lines between provinces, encourage the purchase of electric cars – and, when Canadian efforts fall short, buy credits from abroad. Some interesting promises from the Canadian federal government. On the one hand the Liberals have perfected the art of making a lot of promises and not following through (see recent progress on Canadian electoral reform). However at least they're talking about climate change as a problem that should be addressed instead of a ((scientific)) conspiracy. A few comments: -large sections of the boreal forest are going to burn down over the next few decades, so might as well take credit for managing them properly now -it's a real political balancing act to seriously address climate change in Canada given how strongly the prairie provinces depend on the oil industry. I think most people here understand that the oil sands should be shut down ASAP, but I don't think that's politically possible in Canada. As in any federal government that even attempts to curtail oil sands production will not survive. -the emphasis on electrical infrastructure is good, we'll see if it's followed through. Quebec has an obscene amount of hydro power, which I suppose isn't regarded as "clean" these days but whatever. There really is no excuse for any coal/natural gas power plants in Quebec or the Ontario great lakes region. Overall as the article notes these measures probably aren't enough for Canada to meet it's emission reductions goals, which are probably inadequate in the first place. However it's an example of a western government implicitly recognizing the seriousness of climate change while constrained by a large and politically powerful domestic oil industry. edit: As recent events in the USA have shown, the ability for the Canadian government to actually follow through on these plans is entirely dependent on whether or not the Conservatives return to power. Has anyone come up with a figure for how much higher US emissions will be given that Trump happened? Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Mozi posted:What keeps bugging me is that I can do that and go into homestead-mode and grow half of my own food and all the rest of it, but even that kind of life depends on regular and predictable seasons and weather patterns. If those are completely destabilized you won't be able to rely on nature the way we did before technology - we will be out of options. Well you could do a hydroponic greenhouse setup with a fish>plants>fish setup as everything around you turns to a barren wasteland. Still requires clean water though 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Well you could do a hydroponic greenhouse setup with a fish>plants>fish setup as everything around you turns to a barren wasteland. Still requires clean water though It's a cool way to get protein from what's basically very area-efficient farming. Making it robust and sustainable may be expensive and challenging, though. Luckily you can now read and learn about this on the internet from folks who are into this stuff, and have better chances than anyone previously at making something like that work. Pretty cool, if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Do people like that actually believe climate change is some hoax or over-blown alarmism, or are they just full out horrible evil captain planet villains trying to get them and their supporters as much hay while the sun shines as possible? I imagine a ton of rich and powerful people just want to stock up on as much wealth as they possibly can so they can survive the coming doom of their own making. Then again I've known plenty of rich people that are absolutely stupid so I could totally believe either being true. Most Trump voters I know see it as something that is happening but not caused by humans and there isn't anything we can do about it because it is God's will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
So it seems like stopping climate change or really even controlling the effects is no longer possible unless we were to almost entirely stop emissions within the next few years - right? So what is the correct course of action for individuals to undertake? We're going down. At this point is the best choice to help make this decline as painless as possible? Damage control? Dang.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Move next to the largest fresh body of water you can , possibly out fit your house with moisture farmers and some solar panels that power a indoor vertical garden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Telephones posted:So it seems like stopping climate change or really even controlling the effects is no longer possible unless we were to almost entirely stop emissions within the next few years - right? Become as rich as you can as quickly as you can so you can buy your way into one of the safe gated survival complex's in a rich stable country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Or emigrate to New Zealand/Australia/Norway/Sweden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Billionaires are buying up large chunks of NZ so it's a good time to invest in RE there, my investments have been doing pretty well over the past couple years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Telephones posted:So it seems like stopping climate change or really even controlling the effects is no longer possible unless we were to almost entirely stop emissions within the next few years - right? Join an activist organization that's trying to do something, and encourage others to do the same. Individuals alone can't do anything, but enough people working together can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
It's colder across northern BC tonight, quite far south of the arctic circle, than it is everywhere in the high Arctic except Baffin Island. By nearly 20 degrees celcius.  We're so very hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Greenland is looking pretty warm, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Or emigrate to New Zealand/Australia/Norway/Sweden. What about Canada?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Telephones posted:So it seems like stopping climate change or really even controlling the effects is no longer possible unless we were to almost entirely stop emissions within the next few years - right? If the governments kick into gear quickly enough (ie before the western antartic ice shelf breaks apart), R&D could be done to get aerosols deployed before the coasts are all flooded. But assuming no adverse effects from that, it still wouldn't reduce emissions so ocean acidification will continue unabated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Actually speaking of mitigating climate change has anyone seen that promo for the indiegogo "Water Seer"? http://waterseer.org/ From my limited understanding there will be more moisture over all in the air due to climate change. So maybe something like this or other moisture harvesters could help mitigate some of the problems?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
quote:What about Canada? Certainly one of the better places to be but its well being will be so connected to that of the USA its hard to know what will happen. WaterSeer: I am deeply suspicious of this device. Once they actually use it in the real world and tell us how it performed, we will know. They should do that. Had a look through their website and they were extremely sparse on performance, huge red flag. They talk about a peak performance and am willing to believe that under ideal conditions that could be achievable. The reason this thing works is that the cool ground can cool the air and condense water. But continuously pumping air down there will heat up the ground locally and then the ground is less cool and less able to cool the air and so forth. Will the ground be cool after a week of operation? I don't know. Will it still work after a week of operation? Then there are the plethora of maintenance issues. If this thing for whatever reason, how ever slight a fault, stops working, it will be useless. That is the experience of exporting tech to the 3rd world, it has to be maintained. And what happens if something starts growing in the bulb, algae or some such or some other organic matter gets into it? That would also render it useless. But until the actual trial it and actual make that info available I will assume its useless. Because otherwise they would make that info available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
I'm going into nursing. What are the chances of me ending up as a mad-max style Organic Mechanic before I die?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:I'm going into nursing. What are the chances of me ending up as a mad-max style Organic Mechanic before I die? Africa and the Middle East will be right there waiting after you finish school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Telephones posted:So it seems like stopping climate change or really even controlling the effects is no longer possible unless we were to almost entirely stop emissions within the next few years - right? 1) Climate change is basically a political problem. The most effective climate change mitigation strategy in the west at this point is to keep political progressives in government, especially federal govts. The damage from just a single Trump administration will likely outweigh any state or local level environmental initiatives in the USA. Similarly a progressive govt is more likely to abide international climate agreements which are about the only way we can even hope to influence climate emissions from China and India. Get involved in a progressive political party if you're not already. In my opinion this is more important than joining a local environmental activist group, though if you have time by all means do both. 2) Don't buy coastal real estate. I'd say try to prevent further development along the coast but good luck fighting developers at the municipal level. In the US reforming the federal flood insurance program would do a lot to make living in coastal areas unaffordable, which would be a good way to ensure an orderly migration away from soon to be underwater regions. Once again this requires control of the federal government. 3) If you're seriously worried and thinking of moving I'd say Chicago, Toronto and Montreal are likely to be North Americas major cities of the future. Already established, lots of fresh water and well above sea level If you're posting here I'd guess the billionaire super-compounds in New Zealand aren't an option for you. Personally I think it's a little early to think of moving, but keep an eye on the western antarctic ice sheet. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:Honestly I'm thinking of just giving up on following this research trajectory. It's been nice keeping up with how insipid we are as a species, and how intractable our dedication to self-destruction is, but it is wearing me the gently caress down and I'm not even a year into the PhD yet. I made it a year into post grad before abandoning the field. It is a rabbit hole of horrible. The daily exposure was turning me into something I didn't like, and that was back in the olden days when we still had a chance to do something. Much happier now. Just chillin' and learnin' art and enjoying this doomed existence. I still keep up, and sometimes when I get pretty drunk I'll yammer on about the staggering levels of hosed we are. But on the whole, it's been healthier for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Some people may have been hoping that Trump's election might galvanize the necessary reaction to climate change (as opposed to inadequate business-as-usual under another Clinton administration.) I see an article in the NYTimes today with the headline 'Clean Energy ‘Moving Forward’ Despite Trump’s E.P.A. Pick, Experts Say.' When it is obvious that the existing regulations were grossly inadequate to accomplish what we want, it's a little baffling to me that these 'experts' are not currently engaged in a full court press to drive home the fact that simply 'moving forward' is guaranteed to lead to disaster. The gulf between what needs to happen and what is happening could not be more clear but the reaction by people who might actually understand this is entirely underwhelming. We are going to keep our heads in the sand while we feel the water rise around our ankles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Mozi posted:
Thanks of how bad it feels for the enlightened layman to realize how badly hosed things are, and then imagine being high enough up to change things ever so slightly or be an expert in the field. The sensation of utter powerlessness must eclipse anything we can feel, it's no surprise that cognitive dissonance is the only way they survive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Gareth Gobulcoque posted:I made it a year into post grad before abandoning the field. It is a rabbit hole of horrible. The daily exposure was turning me into something I didn't like, and that was back in the olden days when we still had a chance to do something. My dad (we live in Europe, BTW) is getting a PhD in Climate Change and I don't understand how he is not suicidal. The only time I asked directly about the subject was mentioning Trump pulling out of the Paris accords and giving deniers top positions and he came up with this convoluted explanation about how it wouldn't be that bad since a lot of those regulations are up to individual states and most follow California's lead, topping off with "you're just as misinformed as a Trump supporter!". He has also been to a ton of conferences abroad and my mom (who goes with him and doesn't speak Englush) says "no one there looked depressed" Makes me wonder if my dad is being scammed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:My dad (we live in Europe, BTW) is getting a PhD in Climate Change and I don't understand how he is not suicidal. The only time I asked directly about the subject was mentioning Trump pulling out of the Paris accords and giving deniers top positions and he came up with this convoluted explanation about how it wouldn't be that bad since a lot of those regulations are up to individual states and most follow California's lead, topping off with "you're just as misinformed as a Trump supporter!". He has also been to a ton of conferences abroad and my mom (who goes with him and doesn't speak Englush) says "no one there looked depressed" Makes me wonder if my dad is being scammed. I think it is somewhat difficult for many people to understand how vastly different the states can be, and how disproportionate their impacts are. Texas alone is in the top 10 global emitters, I believe, and they follow only mammon's lead. For me, though, the depression comes not so much from the "we're hosed," but from the realization that a career in politics or non-profit work - which, generally, means a career in business followed by a transition - would be a much more effective avenue for effecting change. With the science it's too easy to get buried in the particulars of your field. Even in my program, most people just focus on their narrow area, and rarely step back to take in all the implications of what is going on at a global and world-historical scale. There is also the issue that, for most physical scientists, social systems are thought of - if they are thought of at all - as being super resilient and adaptable, when in fact they express a massive range of such qualities, and generally, only the most loathsome rich people are on the high end. This leads to a lot of dissonance that is almost as maddening as outright climate deniers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 16:35
|
|