|
The arctic amplification we've been seeing is pretty clearly more severe than a lot of the more conservative estimates that had been made. Does this have anything to do with increased arctic methane releases? Either as an effect or cause? It looks like atmospheric methane had leveled out and then surged up a bit from 2010-2015. Is there a (relatively) benign explanation for this like changes in agricultural activity, or are we beginning to see hints of the oh-poo poo methane bomb?
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Mozi posted:
I hope the krill are ok 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:There literally isn't any other person dead or alive who has been more philanthropic, perhaps Warren Buffet but they are so of the same ilk. And you actually want to deride him. We absolutely live in different realities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Never seen Cool Hand Luke, I take it? quote:"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Morbus posted:The arctic amplification we've been seeing is pretty clearly more severe than a lot of the more conservative estimates that had been made. Expansion of agriculture in the tropics looks like the culprit. If the methane clathrates start to go though that's probably the signal to start buying land and guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Expansion of agriculture in the tropics looks like the culprit. It's one of the more likely explanations for the bulk of the increase, but part of the problem is that we don't inventory CH4 emissions in the same way that we do CO2 emissions. The sudden rise is probably a combination of agriculture, natural gas production/use, and natural causes, but nobody can say with 100% certainty in what ratio each is contributing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:If you were a billionaire with tens of billions of dollars, how would you try and 'solve' climate change? I'd honestly start funding Mr. Burns style solutions, mega-projects which reduce insolation on a global scale. A solar shade* might be cheaper than supporting the tens of millions of likely climate refugees, and has a few bonuses going for it. We could adjust the affects if we need to fine tune it, and it affects the entire planet equally if it's well designed. Sure, we're talking a trillion dollar expense, but the planet is probably worth it. * Does not solve ocean acidification, aquifer depletion or soil degradation. Just sea level rise, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:If you were a billionaire with tens of billions of dollars, how would you try and 'solve' climate change? A) A massive social movement to implement and maintain widespread, affordable mass transit and stigmatize private ownership of internal combustion engines B) An equally massive architectural/design movement to renovate and rebuild facilities on a conceptual level on upward to promote carbon-neutral/subtracting urban development, creating walkable cities with affordable housing C) Immediately greenlight and maintain laboratories for direct carbon capture via algae farming, Global Thermometers, carbon nanotube sequestration D) Combat ocean acidification/pollution via olivine mining, 3D ocean farming; triple-fund the Ocean Cleanup E) Solar desalination plants F) Massive reforestation/soil rehabilitation projects. Buy up as much land as I can with the express goal of resettling it with rehabilitative projects: soil sequestration, regenerative agriculture, etc. G) Urban vertical farming; encourage the use of abandoned/empty space to maintain year-round LED-fueled aquaculture, and as long as I'm pushing a massive social movement, might as well get people interested in eating all this kelp I'm farming up H) Naturally, massive investments in alternative energy sources. It isn't a bad idea to try to destigmatize modern nuclear reactors, but I'm already tilting at a lot of windmills here. I) Throw moonshot money at viable, affordable cloned meat. I'll probably think of more steps as I go, but the general idea would be to rope as many people as I could into treating it as a series of solvable problems/potential innovations. A more resilient, adaptive community can minimize the impact while simultaneously positioning itself to take full benefit of the disruptions it causes. In a way, there's opportunity here; our infrastructure is already falling apart, so this presents a chance to build it again and do it better. Also, just because it's cool, I'd probably throw some money at the technologies being produced to create a permanent lunar colony.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
I think Newman was more of a philanthropist, or at least in the same ballpark, because his company gave 100% of their profits to charity. There are other reasons, but I think that's enough that anyone claiming "biggest philanthropist" has to bring up Paul Newman. Climate change was one of his major causes as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
'Tens of billions of dollars' is really not the amount of money people seem to think it is. The US government budget is about 4 trillion dollars. Per year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Fangz posted:'Tens of billions of dollars' is really not the amount of money people seem to think it is. The US government budget is about 4 trillion dollars. Per year. Well, sure, but that's not money that can just be spent combatting climate change, the budget (which runs a deficit) goes towards paying other necessary things. I agree that tens of billions of dollars could maybe pay for one of those things on a global scale, but that sort of begs the question of "are we limited to tens of billions of dollars" in this Robin Hood fantasy of seperating the rich from their money or some sort of philantropic renaissance? Obviously not, we're talking trillions. I have been harping on this previously, but the oligarchic tendencies of the global economy, laissez faire capitalism etc. cannot contribute to combatting global warming. Sooner or later, a receding global economy will have to come to terms with the fact that the sustainable, regenerative economic world requires us to change our preconceived notions of consumerism, mass production and economic/industrial growth and non-regulated markets and organisations into viewing these things a medieval, antedeluvian concepts devoid of any kind of sense of responsibility. Currently, polluting is happening without the pollutor paying the actual cost of it. The entire system is a gigantic false economy that billions of people, mostly in the third world, will be paying for in very real and increasing consequences very soon. Making the billionaires carry the costs of necessary changes first is equitable, socially responsible and very just in my opinion. But then there's the problem of making that a practical reality. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Yeah, it's over. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38301686
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:Yeah, it's over. Yeah, see? Actions and not words. Time to buy some land and guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Something that might be worthwhile to keep an eye on is that Antarctic sea ice is currently melting very, very quickly. In the last four days it has lost extent greater than that of California and Texas combined (1,119,629 km2) for a remaining extent of 8,769,622 km2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Something that might be worthwhile to keep an eye on is that Antarctic sea ice is currently melting very, very quickly. In the last four days it has lost extent greater than that of California and Texas combined (1,119,629 km2) for a remaining extent of 8,769,622 km2. Or you know just not and avoid being depressed over what you have no control over. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
I guess I'm the kind of person who would keep their eyes open after jumping off of a skyscraper (or being shoved off, I guess is a more appropriate metaphor.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Something that might be worthwhile to keep an eye on is that Antarctic sea ice is currently melting very, very quickly. In the last four days it has lost extent greater than that of California and Texas combined (1,119,629 km2) for a remaining extent of 8,769,622 km2. Isn't it the peak of Antarctic summer? The question is what's up in the Weddel Sea 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
I had a too-long and spirited discussion with some Trump voters I met at a hotel bar in Virginia last week. When we got to global warming, of course one of them wanted to have the whole "we don't know how much is man made..." conversation, and I said: "Look, we can actually stop having that argument now. It doesn't matter. Even if it's entirely man-made, we have crossed a line, and we're not going to be able to stop it. We're going to see water shortages, we already are. It's going to lead to massive destabilization in places which are already barely stable. Expect a good number of African governments to fail entirely, which is going to create migratory pressure on the EU unlike anything we've witnessed in modern history. Expect people to be machine-gunned down in large numbers. Expect governments which are basically stable now, to destabilize as a result. We don't have to agree about what caused any of this; ice is melting, water is rising, and things are going to get a lot worse in our lifetimes. Stop thinking about what we don't agree on, I suspect we agree that machine-gunning people in large numbers to protect the sanctity of borders is something we'd all prefer to avoid, so we should talk about how we minimize that, because we likely can't actually avoid it." That shut them up pretty well, they were a bit taken aback. And, loving good, the whole conversation made my head hurt. Of course, the cause does matter a great deal and maybe there are yet things on that front which we could do. But, coaching the issue in those terms didn't seem useful in this context. I don't think it's alarmist at this point to say "millions of people will die from climate factors in my lifetime, maybe hundreds of millions". So, use that. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
It is, it's no surprise that the Antarctic is melting now. It's just if you compare to the previous few years there's a really dramatic difference. Should be more clear when the December monthly total is up. And yes, the Arctic is weird right now. It should start freezing up more but the volume is not going to recover and will probably be a record low heading into the melt season. Tim Raines IRL posted:36 more days == no sea ice? I doubt the current rate will be maintained, but at the very least it's a signal that Antarctica isn't as stable as the models predict. Mozi fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
I don't really see how buying land and guns helps with any of this, other than maybe letting you live out your road-warrior apocalypse dream while society unravels. Of course, I own guns, and am expecting to buy some cold, relatively high-altitude land in the next year or two... for entirely different reasons than this thread. There are all kinds of good reasons to suspect that densely populated coastal areas are not a great place to settle in to for the long term right now. I moved out of the DC/VA shitfest a month ago; good riddance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Or you know just not and avoid being depressed over what you have no control over. Zactly. Just picture yourself as the B-52 pilot in Doctor Strangelove all a whoopin' and a hollerin' riding the bomb down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
If anyone's interested in a live-action role-play of Snowpiercer: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/12/mitigating-the-risk-of-geoengineering/ quote:Through extensive modeling of stratospheric chemistry, the team found that calcite, a constituent of limestone, could counter ozone loss by neutralizing emissions-borne acids in the atmosphere, while also reflecting light and cooling the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Any kind of Geo-engineering of the stratosphere makes me very fiddly because either: A: It works, and we get to live B: It doesn't work and we basically just doomed half of the ecosystems on the planet for nothing C: It works too well and we all die Also because that strategy game of which the name escapes me about preventing global warming that was released like 4 years ago provided me with an irrational fear of that solution. Edit: poo poo it was 5 years ago and the name was Fate of The World. For those who still feel that they haven't grasped how spillover effects work within the context of the environment this game is an excellent place to start. 
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Any kind of Geo-engineering of the stratosphere makes me very fiddly because either: As a software person the thing that freaks me out is that we don't have a test environment that's anything like production. It's more like, we test our code one line at a time in little VMs that don't support 0.1% of the IO of the production env or even run a remotely similar OS, and then we just force push to master, deploy the fucker and hope for the best. On the other hand, at some point the alternative will be "server is down..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Now the reindeer are dying, too...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Department of Energy head told Trump's transition team they will not be complying in their request to name name's of climate researchers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Department of Energy head told Trump's transition team they will not be complying in their request to name name's of climate researchers. Holy poo poo, can you source this? e: never mind I googled, we live in crazytown
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
How did this happen
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:How did this happen 2016
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
the economist ran an article about how the exxon pick is cool and good so we're ok http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/12/private-emperor-public-envoy
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:the economist ran an article about how the exxon pick is cool and good so we're ok  , do these naive shits actually believe that him giving an inch in a speech means that he'll give a mile in practice? Especially when it's against the corporation and field he has sworn his life to. Jesus christ. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
The price of failing to adapt ourselves to the realities of our climate is unimaginable and unacceptable, so it is not being imagined and not being accepted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:the economist ran an article about how the exxon pick is cool and good so we're ok Awesome! Just what everyone needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The price of failing to adapt ourselves to the realities of our climate is unimaginable and unacceptable, so it is not being imagined and not being accepted. Sadly, yes. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Now, how good is the opposition towards the dismantling of national parks and the like by the Trump Administration? Good enough to block legislature?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Now, how good is the opposition towards the dismantling of national parks and the like by the Trump Administration? Good enough to block legislature? Tea Party and friends have been running campaigns to encourage it. Its one of the must disgusting parts about the whole standoff at the National Wildlife Refuge, was that the GOP wants to seize public lands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:2016 That's really not fair. The writing has been on the wall for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:That's really not fair. There's a difference about the writing being on the wall and the wall invading Poland. Just ask WW2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The price of failing to adapt ourselves to the realities of our climate is unimaginable and unacceptable, so it is not being imagined and not being accepted. That's it right there. I am myself some days tempted to just glaze my eyes over and go along with the "Exxon and Goldman Sachs leadership in the White House may look corrupt and regressive, but in fact..." narrative . It would be easier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
What's that on the stages of grief? Bargaining?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:33
|
|