|
Paradoxish posted:No, no one is seriously worried about pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere that its actual presence beyond greenhouse effects becomes a threat to life on Earth. Market solutions like you suggest are absolutely vital in the short term, but the problem is that solutions that go far enough will be objectively bad for fossil fuel industries. A huge part of what makes this such a difficult problem is that even conservative actions generally don't have an upside for entities that make their money through emissions generating activities. It's hard to sugarcoat it when we literally need to tell companies that they aren't allowed to use the atmosphere as a free waste dump anymore and also get consumers to accept the costs that will be passed down to them. There's one thing I still can't understand here is whether you're advocating enforced carbon austerity now to prevent emissions, or if you're simply pointing out that in the medium- to long-term climate change is going to be essentially self-mitigating because of economic damage. I obviously agree with the latter but also think you're overstating it because assuming business as usual we'll certainly be able to blow past even the most extreme carbon limits before that damage can dramatically reduce emissions. It's also not really a political solution, or even a solution at all. It's an economic self-regulation mechanism that will probably prevent us from reaching 1500 ppm of carbon, but won't be even nearly sufficient to keep us under 700 ppm which is easily enough to cause catastrophic climate change. However, if you mean the former, that we need carbon austerity now, that's a different story. This does have the advantage of being able to limit atmospheric carbon much more, but it comes at an incredible cost to the developing world. Because shock therapy emissions reduction more or less necessitates negative growth, you'll essentially be forced to stop third-world industrial development and in places like China and India actively reverse it. You're condemning the vast majority of the world to indefinite increasing poverty, while displacing the late-century disruptive effects that climate change will have on poor countries, (famine, resource conflicts, migration), onto the present day. So while you're talking a lot about economic and political realism, but as far as these countries are concerned this isn't a realistic program. Developing countries are the biggest advocates of technical solutions and geoengineering projects because the don't only have the most to lose from climate change but also from aggressive mitigation. Foreclosing on any technical solution essentially means they're entirely hosed. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jan 20, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:I think people who like to come up with buckets for other people like to turn every discussion into some kind of partisan game. There are no "climate nihilists" throwing "climate ferrets" into your "bathtub of reasonable climate change solutions". Nah. It is a useful, accurate, and descriptive term. My primary interest is in climate action, not the feelings of the people actively resisting it. I'm sure you are a lovely person and you have engaged thoughtfully and honestly with me in the past, and I hope you continue to do so in the future, but the position you advocate (i.e. your "record") matters. Here are two articles on the importance of calling things for what they are even in the face of fragility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:If only nuclear bombs were little compact chernobyls *stares wistfully into lover's eyes, choking up the last bit of irradiated lung tissue* "We'll always have Chernobyl. Urgh, pfft, aergh ugh."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Rogue Scientists Race to Save Climate Data from Trumpquote:At Penn, a group of coders that called themselves “baggers” set upon these tougher sets immediately, writing scripts to scrape the data and collect them in data bundles to be uploaded to DataRefuge.org, an Amazon Web Services-hosted site which will serve as an alternate repository for government climate and environmental research during the Trump administration. (A digital “bag” is like a safe, which would alert the user if anything within it is changed.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Someone should get these people on the phone and tell them individual action is worthless.!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There's one thing I still can't understand here is whether you're advocating enforced carbon austerity now to prevent emissions, or if you're simply pointing out that in the medium- to long-term climate change is going to be essentially self-mitigating because of economic damage. I obviously agree with the latter but also think you're overstating it because assuming business as usual we'll certainly be able to blow past even the most extreme carbon limits before that damage can dramatically reduce emissions. It's also not really a political solution, or even a solution at all. It's an economic self-regulation mechanism that will probably prevent us from reaching 1500 ppm of carbon, but won't be even nearly sufficient to keep us under 700 ppm which is easily enough to cause catastrophic climate change. I'm not really advocating for anything. I'm pointing out that we no longer have any options that aren't economically damaging. We can reduce emissions now, which will likely have negative growth impacts at least over the short term, or we can run with a business as usual approach and suffer a less predictable and likely much more severe economic fallout later. When I say that emissions cuts are unavoidable, I only mean that there's no actual path that allows us to avoid them. I don't think waiting for the global economic engine to stall out is actually a good solution or that it will solve climate change in any meaningful sense, just that emissions will fall one way or another. quote:However, if you mean the former, that we need carbon austerity now, that's a different story. This does have the advantage of being able to limit atmospheric carbon much more, but it comes at an incredible cost to the developing world. Because shock therapy emissions reduction more or less necessitates negative growth, you'll essentially be forced to stop third-world industrial development and in places like China and India actively reverse it. You're condemning the vast majority of the world to indefinite increasing poverty, while displacing the late-century disruptive effects that climate change will have on poor countries, (famine, resource conflicts, migration), onto the present day. So while you're talking a lot about economic and political realism, but as far as these countries are concerned this isn't a realistic program. Developing countries are the biggest advocates of technical solutions and geoengineering projects because the don't only have the most to lose from climate change but also from aggressive mitigation. Foreclosing on any technical solution essentially means they're entirely hosed. I'm not suggesting that we stop burning all fossil fuels right this minute. An aggressive plan to cut emissions in the US over the short term would probably involve massive investment in mass transit and affordable housing in denser areas, large disincentives for fossil fuel burning industries, and a much larger push towards renewable and nuclear energy. It's actually harder for us to deal with this kind of change than it is for the developing world because we have to deal with replacing existing, already modern infrastructure and more powerful entrenched interests. If we're talking about completely unrealistic dream scenarios, then my preference would be for developed nations to support large scale sustainable development projects in the developing world. Absolutely none of this is realistic, of course, but neither is a future where developing nations follow China's path to industrialization. And to be clear, I'm not discounting technological solutions out of hand. I used to be a huge geoengineering advocate (there are probably posts of mine from five or six years ago advocating for geoengineering as an option), but there just aren't any realistic technologies that can help. Sulfate injection, the most realistic option we have, would devastate some of the most populous regions of the world. Nothing else is even close to feasible. I'm not ideologically opposed to geoengineering, it's just that in its current state it's even less realistic than hoping that capitalism collapses and we'll all be saved by a glorious socialist utopia. If we end up going forward with any of these schemes, it'll be because the world is already so hosed that we'll look back on discussion in this thread as naively optimistic. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's actually harder for us to deal with this kind of change than it is for the developing world because we have to deal with replacing existing, already modern infrastructure and more powerful entrenched interests. I'll grant you that those are factors that make it more difficult in developed countries, but the overall balance remains heavily in their favor. The fact that developing countries are the ones pushing adaptation and geoengineering whereas the developed countries are much more concerned with mitigation should be enough evidence for this, but there's clear reasons too. Rich countries have a lot more wealth to invest in technologies to replace fossil fuels, as well as much higher proportions of skilled personnel to develop and deploy them. They have more robust and diversified economies that handle the shock of emissions reduction. They have better social services and a far more developed civil society that can lessen the social displacement during transition. Their people are wealthier and unlikely to fall into famine due to an increase in fertilizer prices. Their economies are, on average, less dependent on petroleum production. I could go on here but I think you get the point. And, for that matter, it's already happening. OECD carbon emissions peaked a decade ago and have fallen every year since. You've suggested in the past that this is primarily the result of the 2008 crisis, which I don't agree with, but even if it was carbon emissions from developing countries have still been rising. When you look at one of those graphs of the business-as-usual scenario with the rate of carbon emission rising ever-higher, what you're looking at is overwhelmingly third world development. quote:And to be clear, I'm not discounting technological solutions out of hand. I used to be a huge geoengineering advocate (there are probably posts of mine from five or six years ago advocating for geoengineering as an option), but there just aren't any realistic technologies that can help. Sulfate injection, the most realistic option we have, would devastate some of the most populous regions of the world. Nothing else is even close to feasible. I'm not ideologically opposed to geoengineering, it's just that in its current state it's even less realistic than hoping that capitalism collapses and we'll all be saved by a glorious socialist utopia. If we end up going forward with any of these schemes, it'll be because the world is already so hosed that we'll look back on discussion in this thread as naively optimistic. Aerosols could only ever be a stopgap measure. The Paris Agreement sets limits that blow well past 2 degrees and are inherently premised on some form of atmospheric carbon removal, probably BECSS. And yeah, BECSS has a lot of problems and we have no idea if it or a similar program could be deployed in time, or ever. But it's still a more realistic scenario than China, India and Brazil voluntarily impoverishing themselves back to colonial-era levels and contenting themselves to stay there indefinitely. In a very cold-blooded analysis I can say, "yeah, this is the least risky and probably the least lethal option", but at the end of the day it's still a massive catastrophe that no country is going to willingly subject themselves too. It's not stupidity, greed or naivety, it's self-preservation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
That did NOT take long - http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website?utm_source=dmfb
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Climate Nihilism is a great term and it captures absolutely capitulation "I can't manage this so I won't" attitude. No it doesn't, it's an attempt to come up with a cute name for people who do know science and are often better versed in the climate science than the person using the term and who acknowledge the intractability of the problem from a political perspective. Now, excuse me, I have to go cut the pinkie toe off of a grad student.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:That did NOT take long - http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website?utm_source=dmfb Reminder on Trump and Climate: https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:No it doesn't, it's an attempt to come up with a cute name for people who do know science and are often better versed in the climate science than the person using the term and who acknowledge the intractability of the problem from a political perspective. Our difference isn't in our understanding of climate change. It's in our understanding of power, our knowledge of organizing, and our commitment to our values. The scientific consensus on climate mitigation strategies is just as strong as the consensus on climate impacts. Making it happen is a social problem that requires work, risk, and dedication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:That did NOT take long - http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website?utm_source=dmfb On the positive side this could be implicit admission that even conservatives recognize climate change is one of the most important (and controversial) issues of our time. They must have had interns poised over the keyboards to take those pages down so fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:That did NOT take long - http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website?utm_source=dmfb It's still around: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/climate The REAL fight is that Trump replaced that page with this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy quote:Lastly, our need for energy must go hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment. Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority. President Trump will refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water. So don't worry guys! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
While you guys were going around in circles again the Heritage Foundation budget blueprint for the Trump administration got out. All the EPA departments concerning climate change are supposed to be eliminated, along with the DoE's energy efficiency and renewables departments. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:While you guys were going around in circles again the Heritage Foundation budget blueprint for the Trump administration got out. All the EPA departments concerning climate change are supposed to be eliminated, along with the DoE's energy efficiency and renewables departments. We covered that yesterday. We've upped our standards -- up yours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Current estimates of climate sensitivity may be very low. Ancient CO2 estimates worry climatologists quote:Concerns about impending, indeed actual, anthropogenic climate change brought on by rapidly rising levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have spurred efforts to quantify climates of the distant past. Beyond the CO2 record of the last 800 ka established from air bubbles trapped in glacial ice palaeoclimate researchers have had to depend on a range of proxies for the greenhouse effect. Those based on models linking plate tectonic and volcanic CO2 emissions with geological records of the burial of organic matter, weathering and limestone accumulation are imprecise in the extreme, although they hint at considerable variation during the Phanerozoic. Other proxies give a better idea of the past abundance of the main greenhouse gas, one using the curious openings or stomata in leaves that allow gases to pass to and fro between plant cells and the atmosphere. Well preserved fossil leaves show stomata nicely back to about 400 Ma ago when plants first colonised the land. The guessed at/presumed value Earth's climate sensitivity - how much warming will result from a given increase in CO2 - that is baked into climate models is almost certainly a significant underestimation. For any amount of emissions, we are looking at more temperature increase than currently estimated. And this is without factoring any known unknowns (tipping points.) Put another way, the Paris cuts are not only insufficient to meet the stated goals, but wildly so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Current estimates of climate sensitivity may be very low. I'm pretty sure you're blowing it out of proportion. That's a three-year-old article that makes a lot of bold claims, not only that climate sensitivity is higher but also that atmospheric carbon content is effectively capped by extremely strict negative feedback. It's certainly interesting but it's preliminary empirical research on a novel hypothesis, not conclusive evidence of higher climate sensitivity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
I know there are a number of models of ECS that hover around 3 degrees. Is this just one of many, or does it contain newer, better data indicating that we are all hopelessly doomed and never really had a chance to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
I've seen a few other references to this work that seem to indicate that it is reliable. All they've done is narrow the range of the estimates through incorporating other techniques than simply counting stomata. There may have been a different paper that used some form of carbon dating as well? In any case the general trend is towards lower CO2 levels in the ancient past. I wish I had saved the other references.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I've seen a few other references to this work that seem to indicate that it is reliable. All they've done is narrow the range of the estimates through incorporating other techniques than simply counting stomata. There may have been a different paper that used some form of carbon dating as well? In any case the general trend is towards lower CO2 levels in the ancient past. I wish I had saved the other references. I just went ahead and looked up a more recent article. While praising the paper's method for estimating CO2 levels they're skeptical of the conclusions about capped CO2 levels and therefore the implications for climate sensitivity, and even identify a likely source of error that would have caused it. quote:The sensitivity analysis of Franks' model to A0 suggests that the authors claim that post-Paleozoic CO2 was capped in the long-term below 1000 ppm may be premature. We have shown that many of the Mesozoic pteridosperms used for input data to run Franks et al.'s model were assigned with A0 values that are likely too low (some by up to 100%) and which cannot be justified based on their preserved morphological and anatomical traits. Re-parameterization of A0 upwards using fossil vein density (Dv) data (Boyce and Zwieniecki, 2012) and published relationships between Dv and/or Dm with A0 for extant plants ( Brodribb et al., 2007, Brodribb and Feild, 2010 and Boyce and Zwieniecki, 2012) or between Dv, gw(max) and A0 (McElwain et al., 2015) would raise Mesozoic paleo-CO2 estimates well above 1000 ppm. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018215005799
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Mozi posted:And this is without factoring any known unknowns (tipping points.) An/Arctic reflectivity loss. Various methane deposits. What else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:An/Arctic reflectivity loss. Various methane deposits. What else? Wildfire feedbacks and large scale forest loss in the mid and upper latitudes through increased insect/disease ranges; Interruption of oceanic CO2 uptake (phytoplankton, etc.); and, for fun, geological turbulence due to gravitational shifts following from ice sheet collapse (probably much later on in the game?); ummm... global increases in proxy wars and environmental warfare?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
So y'all saying Trump's good since he's the most likely out of the bunch to nuke us humans off the face of the earth?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Here's California's current climate plan: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_fin.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:Wildfire feedbacks and large scale forest loss in the mid and upper latitudes through increased insect/disease ranges; Interruption of oceanic CO2 uptake (phytoplankton, etc.); and, for fun, geological turbulence due to gravitational shifts following from ice sheet collapse (probably much later on in the game?); ummm... global increases in proxy wars and environmental warfare? I still think if we get some popular scientists onboard we can get Trump to embrace the nuclear dream. It's the power source of the future invented in America. that may not be true but he'll say it anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I still think if we get some popular scientists onboard we can get Trump to embrace the nuclear dream. It's the power source of the future invented in America. that may not be true but he'll say it anyway It's a pity Perry is in charge of DoE for that particular dream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Our difference isn't in our understanding of climate change. It's in our understanding of power, our knowledge of organizing, and our commitment to our values. Yup. Your commitment to technological and social optimism overrides your commitment to rational thought. And power and organizing are all on the side of loving Up The Planet and show no signs of slowing down despite all the good-natured words aligned against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
I want to thank Forever_Peace for their posts, this thread scared me so much and being told by so many people who weren't even denialists that it was useless to do anything was so discouraging that I genuinely gave up for a while and lied to myself in order to keep going. But I've seen first-hand how much local action can affect things on a larger scale, it's a slow process but the eventual result can be staggering, and right now I'm seeing more people getting involved in the process than ever before in my lifetime. Whether it can be stopped, whether we'll inevitably face horrifying conditions isn't the issue, these coming years are critical in deciding the speed at which things occur and giving us more time to organize more drastic responses, and the shift towards people's support of environmental action increases every year. If anything the obstacle posed by the incoming administration is a motivator for people who were previously apathetic, it's a better time to reach out to them now than ever. Most of the world believes in climate change, it needs support on the local level and organized pressure on businesses as well as vocal support for environmental technology and shifts towards clean energy. People need to connect with each other and spread information from person to person, one thing I encountered as an outsider to these issues coming into the thread was how much people underestimate others actual awareness of the current severity of the situation even among people who believe in climate change, and that we're very quick to dismiss the notion that it would motivate them to action. That is as harmful if not more harmful than a denialist actively trying to impede progress, you're welcome to your beliefs but please don't spread that poo poo to people who are actually interested in pursuing action. I'm joining my local 350 and I'll do my best to grow the movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's a pity Perry is in charge of DoE for that particular dream. Perry actually kind of likes nuclear power. He likes carbon too, and he's not a fan of safety regulations, but we might at least get some more nuclear plants. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Whatever helps you sleep at night, but nobody is going to pipe down and make a safe space for you YelloYams. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Rime posted:Whatever helps you sleep at night, but nobody is going to pipe down and make a safe space for you YelloYams. Aren't you still arguing we should gently caress the climate and enjoy ourselves?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Trump deleted the climate changed page. We're hosed af.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/ They're excited as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/ Yeah we already know reddit sucks, though
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Aren't you still arguing we should gently caress the climate and enjoy ourselves? No, I've switched to arguing that we should kill 6 billion demons. If you can't even keep up with one shitposter just how do you plan to counteract the malevolent aspirations of all the worlds millionaires? Will the hug circle keep you appraised of where you should direct your next petition? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Rime posted:No, I've switched to arguing that we should kill 6 billion demons. If you can't even keep up with one shitposter just how do you plan to counteract the malevolent aspirations of all the worlds millionaires? Will the hug circle keep you appraised of where you should direct your next petition? Nah I'm stuck in my fossil fueled paradise. My hugcircle is all about how we can save ourselves at the expense of others. Why exterminate them when Gaia will do it for you? Seriously, if anyone in this thread knows about cheap water rights for sale, let me know!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/ Of course that subreddit exists. Of course they're excited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Not quite climate but the closest thread I could find: Roundup causes cirrhosis and cancer http://aje.io/6e5z
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Not quite climate but the closest thread I could find: Here's a better thread for it: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3100175
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
you see, there is no difference between trump and clinton,
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:15
|
|
