|
Femur posted:people who cared about sweatshops. Well if it alleviates your mental illness or whatever this is, we are very much convinced that you care. You certainly have done your best in the face of incredible odds!
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
I smoke a lot and dislike not using a car
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Well if it alleviates your mental illness or whatever this is, we are very much convinced that you care. You certainly have done your best in the face of incredible odds! Why does everything have to be a mental illness with you people? Why can't someone just be pissed the gently caress off or sad because of the situation, which is remarkably lovely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Why does everything have to be a mental illness with you people? Why can't someone just be pissed the gently caress off or sad because of the situation, which is remarkably lovely. What do you mean 'you people'? Talk about lovely..
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Why does everything have to be a mental illness with you people? Why can't someone just be pissed the gently caress off or sad because of the situation, which is remarkably lovely. Probably because of the way that man typed up two barely legible posts about how you shouldn't care about anything because you're a lovely person for caring while being born in the US or whatever his point was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:What do you mean 'you people'? Talk about lovely.. I mean assholes. Like you. And me. SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Probably because of the way that man typed up two barely legible posts about how you shouldn't care about anything because you're a lovely person for caring while being born in the US or whatever his point was. He's saying that First World people didn't do enough to effect solutions to climate change and that Third World people are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of that inaction, and that it's probably the reason why they didn't care. A point that everyone has been making over and over again in this thread. In between telling people to not have children. Or kill theyselves. Or protest coal. Or sign a petition, probably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
I think a bigger problem of why climate change has a lot of people denying it has a lot to do with economics, a lot of people had their access to cheaper fuels or stuff restricted "to save the planet" , the alternatives were expensive or didn't exist. None of this would matter for people well off, but for people that suddenly have to buy a whole new refrigerator because the ir current one uses a gas that is now banned, or air conditioner if they are lucky enough. Or how a lot of their food costs went up due to biofuels, and many other things. Should these things been removed or banned? Sure! The problem is, no affordable alternatives were given to people, none whatsoever other than " eat up the cos ts to save the planet and starve" , none of this will ever work with state intervention in giving subsidies to people who really need help on replacing polluting cheap stuff, simply giving them a computer and some slow internet and " hey learn to code while you starve" is not going to solve anything at all, and it is basically all taht has been done..
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Because you told them your source is some forum. Unless you can also provide a context of why the information in that forum is valid, they have every right to laugh at you. I'm not brain damaged. Of course I provided info.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Well, the simple fact is that it's above freezing at the North Pole right now should count for something regardless of their feelings on sea ice enthusiasts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Well, the simple fact is that it's above freezing at the North Pole right now should count for something regardless of their feelings on sea ice enthusiasts. So should I say I learned this factoid from the something awful forums? Or science alert.com? Or the university of Washington page they link through to with their beacon readings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Do you have to wait until a paper of record like WaPo publishes the same data from the same source for it to be valid? It's not really my concern whether your associates reject this based on where you happened to pick up on it from. I don't expect to actually convince anybody who's in denial, because they're already rejecting reality. Anybody who is open to learning about this should be encouraged to dig down into the actual data rather than reading a newspaper writeup on it but I'm not credulous enough to think that many people will go through that effort. So say you learned it from an eyeball on some dumb online forums but the data stands alone, I'm not writing an opinion piece here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Come on now, this isn't hard. Weather channel national post gizmodo democracy now wapo or just pick anyone of these
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
NOAA finally released their November report (or I finally refreshed the tab):quote:The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2016 was the fifth highest for November in the 137-year period of record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This value is 0.23°C (0.41°F) cooler than the record warmth of 2015 but 0.05°C (0.09°F) higher than the average November value for the 21st century to-date (2001–2016). This was substantially less than previous months; October was tied for 3rd highest and September was a solid 2nd highest. However, here's a rather concerning thing: quote:The average global temperature across land surfaces was 0.95°C (1.71°F) above the 20th century average of 5.9°C (42.6°F)—the 12th highest November global land temperature on record. quote:For the oceans, the November globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), the second highest for November on record, but considerably lower than the record high of 2015 by 0.19°C (0.34°F). They put a link in there comparing 2016 with past years in some anticipation of a record or near-record year, which has this: quote:If December matches the 1998 monthly values (represented by the black triangles): 2016 would tie with 2015 as the warmest year on record.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Do you have to wait until a paper of record like WaPo publishes the same data from the same source for it to be valid? people who don't believe in climate change think that WaPo is fake news, so.... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Last one, I swear: Climate Change: Al Gore kill your children
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Even in winter, Arctic sea ice is no longer safe: https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/812142879644745728
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Curious what summer will look like
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Arctic sea ice extent has been virtually static for the last few days, and was at 11,401,745 km sq km for Christmas Eve. On the 21st of December, it was at 11,401,398 sq km. It then fell the next day to 11,400,739 sq km, and since then it's barely changed.  Merry loving Christmas. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
The topic of having kids/not having kids, recycling and reducing individual consumption, biking to work, and related stuff has been rehashed a bunch of times in this thread, and was rehashed endlessly in the last thread too. We even got to see the whole "Ah-ha! If people don't have kids, humanity will go extinct!" which I expressly put in the OP as one of the dumbest things I saw in the last thread since it necessarily must involve people talking past each other to an impressive degree. People have also disparaged each other over long-term specifics and future geoengineering projects before, to as little effect. It all falls into two fallacious perspectives: It is either too focused on either individual effort, or trying to predict far enough into the future that all predictions are worthless. Individual actions, as long as you're not literally the chief executive of a county, are almost entirely meaningless. Climate change is a systemic problem, so requires large-scale solutions and changes. Individual actions like wasting less food or installing solar panels are nice, and should not be denigrated, but assessed exactly as what they are: An minuscule change with little effect. To say again though, this is not to denigrate those actions; they should be encouraged and talked about in this thread, with the tacit acceptance that, no, that's not going to solve climate change, and no one has ever even implied that they will. However, individual actions are most meaningful when they are assisting efforts of large scale change, which is to say, political efforts, electoral efforts, movements, and growing environmental organizations or organizations tangentially related to climate change (which, I've claimed, is most progressive or socialist organizations). Predictions of the future either have to be vague enough to be meaningless, or specific enough to be wrong. What we can meaningfully say about the future is what the IPCC reports already say, with a pretty good argument to be made that the worst case IPPC scenarios are not actually the worst case due to the pressure of conservative governments to soften the report and the lack of several feedback factors like methane hydrates being examined. Things will probably go to poo poo quite a few years sooner. There's really no sense arguing about the distant future beyond that; the focus should be on what actions we can take now, or what actions are being taken now that we can learn from. That said, Evil_Greven posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Individual actions, as long as you're not literally the chief executive of a county, are almost entirely meaningless. Climate change is a systemic problem, so requires large-scale solutions and changes. Individual actions like wasting less food or installing solar panels are nice, and should not be denigrated, but assessed exactly as what they are: An minuscule change with little effect. To say again though, this is not to denigrate those actions; they should be encouraged and talked about in this thread, with the tacit acceptance that, no, that's not going to solve climate change, and no one has ever even implied that they will. However, individual actions are most meaningful when they are assisting efforts of large scale change, which is to say, political efforts, electoral efforts, movements, and growing environmental organizations or organizations tangentially related to climate change (which, I've claimed, is most progressive or socialist organizations). Individual actions have social significance, normalizing action against climate change and a visual statement that its something worth spending money and time on. When enough people start doing this, politicians will start caring. Its very important to recognize that small actions such as we are discussing are useless to combat climate change as a whole but they are still important to get the rest of society on board. The unfortunate reality is that this is working much too slowly. But in lieu of literally nothing else to do, individual action is still important to encourage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
If nothing else, trying to live like a cuban will ease your transition into the new paradigm as consumerism slows down either from rising costs and scarcity or a shift in cultural values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:If nothing else, trying to live like a cuban will ease your transition into the new paradigm as consumerism slows down either from rising costs and scarcity or a shift in cultural values. The Special Period in Time of Climate Scepticism
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
So you're saying I should keep my 30 year old german cars running for the next 20+ years
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Individual actions have social significance, normalizing action against climate change and a visual statement that its something worth spending money and time on. When enough people start doing this, politicians will start caring. Its very important to recognize that small actions such as we are discussing are useless to combat climate change as a whole but they are still important to get the rest of society on board. If solar panels on roofs were a solid indication of national commitment to preventing climate change then Germany would a stellar example of individual actions making a normative change in the mind of politicians. They're not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
The Arctic sea ice is growing again after a few days of pause, and it's up 104,870 sq km. However, it's still several hundred thousand sq km below the previous lowest record. Consequently, this is what things are looking like as we near the end of the year for area:
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
IM RETARDED IDIOT 'DARE' FROM TRIBALWARS
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
more like redareded hehe
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:If solar panels on roofs were a solid indication of national commitment to preventing climate change then Germany would a stellar example of individual actions making a normative change in the mind of politicians. Ummm, Germany is literally one of the most committed countries to fighting climate change. Has the highest per capita production of both wind power and solar power, first mover in both those categories as well. Has been instrumental in influencing EU policy regarding climate change interventions. And while its so incredibly rare to even find a country that has even reduced its emissions, since Kyoto. quote:So far Germany has reduced CO2 emissions by 22.4%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_response_to_Kyoto_Protocol You picked on the one country that has arguably made the biggest commitment to combating climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Ummm, Germany is literally one of the most committed countries to fighting climate change. Has the highest per capita production of both wind power and solar power, first mover in both those categories as well. Has been instrumental in influencing EU policy regarding climate change interventions. And are still largely burning coal for the other half, whereas their neighbor France never needed to cut their emissions due to a healthy nuclear industry and a lack of buying into scaremongering over Fukushima.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And are still largely burning coal for the other half, whereas their neighbor France never needed to cut their emissions due to a healthy nuclear industry and a lack of buying into scaremongering over Fukushima. What you say is very true. The previous poster was criticizing Germany on the basis that their politics do not support climate change mitigation, which was the point I was arguing against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:What you say is very true. The previous poster was criticizing Germany on the basis that their politics do not support climate change mitigation, which was the point I was arguing against. Ah, got it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:What you say is very true. The previous poster was criticizing Germany on the basis that their politics do not support climate change mitigation, which was the point I was arguing against. Support, but in an rear end-backwards way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
BattleMoose posted:What you say is very true. The previous poster was criticizing Germany on the basis that their politics do not support climate change mitigation, which was the point I was arguing against. My point was exactly that of CommieGIR, I might have phrased that poorly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
While I don't deny that climate change involves a dramatic transition period, have people considered the fact that we could end up in a far superior climate on the other side? Much like a revolution is a time of turmoil, whose intensity might seem scary in the moment but which stops the constant normalized oppression by the ruling class, climate change might be be a shock but eventually place us in a world where we're no longer oppressed by smothering blankets of snow in the winter. The Earth has been much warmer and wetter in the past, where the polar regions had nice and temperate climates and desert regions gave way to scrub and grasslands, or even monsoon and rain forests. Conversely, we see that a colder globe leads to a drier world, one dominated by cold tundra, frigid steppes, and bone dry deserts, none of which support much in the way of life, human or otherwise. Change can be scary, but imagine going to the year 2300 and explaining to the Uzbek fishermen that the world was much better off when the Aral Sea was called the Aralkum Desert, the farmers of Niger, Chad, and Libya that the Sahara desert was a much better home than the fertile Saharan Corridor, or the people of the Arabian Peninsula that living in a giant sandbox was preferable to living in a lush tropical paradise nourished by a multitude of fertile rivers.  Obviously we're going to need decisive action to carry us through this period of transition as painlessly as possible, because the road to the new equilibrium passes through a much less hospitable world, but on the other side awaits a veritable paradise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
I don't know who originally wrote that but I dislike them intensely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
For reals though, has anyone come across any legit modeling of future biomes? I'm having a hard time picturing the Colorado Plateau somehow not being in a rain shadow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Im gonna need some citation on that map. Saudi Arabia a...tropical rainforest? Really?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
That viewpoint is ridiculous and naive, and is really only a perspective to hold if you accept the obliteration of science, advanced culture and technological civilization, because it's us, humanity, that will suffer from the rapid changes. Biomes will eventually adapt to new conditions, but not without an extinction level event which we are creating. Just the recovery process alone is measured in milennia. "Maybe it'll all work out and global warming will make the earth more hospitable? I mean, warmer weather is nice, right?" - an abject moron. This is on par with claiming global warming isn't real because snow exists. We're in actual real life likely to cause a runaway warming effect, shutting down the thermohaline cirulation of the oceans, suffer an anoxic ocean event that kills 99.99% of all life on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:I don't know who originally wrote that but I dislike them intensely. Fasdar posted:For reals though, has anyone come across any legit modeling of future biomes? I'm having a hard time picturing the Colorado Plateau somehow not being in a rain shadow. Polio Vax Scene posted:Im gonna need some citation on that map. Saudi Arabia a...tropical rainforest? Really? Nice piece of fish posted:We're in actual real life likely to cause a runaway warming effect, shutting down the thermohaline cirulation of the oceans, suffer an anoxic ocean event that kills 99.99% of all life on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It kinda is? I mean, not completely, but that's because the entire region is much wetter. It's still steppe/savanna/monsoon climate on the map, and even monsoon climate can be pretty dry for most of the year. If you add a bunch of rain to a desert you're going to get a pile of wet sand. You might hope to generate 1 centimeter of soil in 100 years and maybe be able to plan crops in 1000.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 20:01
|
|
