|
call to action posted:Remember when people assumed that we'd at least be trending towards greater climate acceptance/mitigation work as the signs of climate change made themselves obvious? lol
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Florida, banning of "climate change" from officials' discourse. yeah how'd that go down anyway? isn't this literally a 1st amendment violation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:yeah how'd that go down anyway? isn't this literally a 1st amendment violation? Seeing as Canada did this too, what are we going to do about it? (also, public employment can confer limited exclusion of the 1st)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:yeah how'd that go down anyway? isn't this literally a 1st amendment violation? On their own time they can say whatever they want but when acting as a representative of the State they can't It hasn't helped. *typo too good not to leave in
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
I'm saying in stuff like RCP2.6 and its predecessors, not this thread. The centrist consensus 10-15 years ago was that we would have been a hell of a lot further along by now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
call to action posted:Remember when people assumed that we'd at least be trending towards greater climate acceptance/mitigation work as the signs of climate change made themselves obvious? lol I'm getting on a bit now (48) but I pretty much remember the "we're all gonna die to atom bombs" of the cold war then we went to "we're all gonna die of aids"!! then we went to "OMG global warming... er.. I mean Climate change" then I just kinda gave up & got on with my life coz whatever!! Not saying it's not real or that it doesn't scare me but at this point I don't think I can do much to help other than try to minimise my energy use & even then, that's just a piss in the ocean  Anyway one got any positive ideas for helping that are realistic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Trainee PornStar posted:I'm getting on a bit now (48) but I pretty much remember the "we're all gonna die to atom bombs" of the cold war then we went to "we're all gonna die of aids"!! then we went to "OMG global warming... er.. I mean Climate change" then I just kinda gave up & got on with my life coz whatever!! Both atom bombs and aids killed an insane number of people. Aids is responsible for more than a million deaths each year, which is a staggering number and a black eye for our entire species. You can help through charity and political action. TRUMP! is talking about cutting all foreign aid and that is going to cause deaths in areas that we provide condoms and educational resources. Global warming is similar enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Both atom bombs and aids killed an insane number of people. Aids is responsible for more than a million deaths each year, which is a staggering number and a black eye for our entire species. You can help through charity and political action. TRUMP! is talking about cutting all foreign aid and that is going to cause deaths in areas that we provide condoms and educational resources. We have the drugs to essentially defeat AIDS now and we still let a million die per year, versus climate change where most of the US and China don't even see it as a thing, let alone there being some sort of hypothetical plan that would work, let alone that plan ever being implemented. Similar enough!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
call to action posted:We have the drugs to essentially defeat AIDS now and we still let a million die per year, versus climate change where most of the US and China don't even see it as a thing, let alone there being some sort of hypothetical plan that would work, let alone that plan ever being implemented. Similar enough! We have the technology to defeat global warming. There is no debate about its reality, only smoke and mirrors to fool the gullible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Yea uh, physically speaking there is very little stopping us from defeating climate change in a shockingly short timespan. The problem is and always has been political. Not to say that that makes it any better, because those political problems literally cannot be changed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
How in the hell do we defeat climate change in a short timespan, by culling SE Asia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:How in the hell do we defeat climate change in a short timespan, by culling SE Asia? Public works projects with a total cost similar to world war 2 in which every country simultaneously enacts a radical and centrally planned program of carbon emissions reduction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Public works projects with a total cost similar to world war 2 in which every country simultaneously enacts a radical and centrally planned program of carbon emissions reduction. Assuming we haven't passed a point of no return, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Public works projects with a total cost similar to world war 2 in which every country simultaneously enacts a radical and centrally planned program of carbon emissions reduction. This is how, yes. I feel like a lot of people do not entirely grasp the extent of the human race's power and productivity. If we, being the entirely of western society, really wanted to we could save the world in any way you'd like to think of it. We could save it from poverty, hunger, climate change, all these things are 100% physically possible, and within our grasp barring any political problems (all problems are political, there are no physical impossibilities with regards to any of these things). Certainly there are challenges involved, and sacrifices that would have to be made, and that's where the political issue comes into play. Obviously such lines of discussion are vacuous and not even really worth putting thought into, because any simpleton can see that political issues are not going anywhere in the time scale required to address climate change. The hosed up thing is that anyone with any optimism seems to think that anything short of a, forgive the cliche'd phrase, but "Marshall Plan level of action" could approach anything meaningful or significant. People who think that the political aspect of climate change is salvageable seem to misunderstand the physical reality of the situation just as severely as someone who thinks that it's physically impossible to stop, or even as severely as someone who thinks that climate change is a hoax. Even the most active and aggressive nations in the world with regards to climate change are still moving decades too slowly, and the nation that matters the most by an exponential factor is actively moving in the opposite direction. I know for a fact that when someone reads the phrase "well all you need to do is get every important nation in the world to work together and sink trillions of dollars into a project that will actually reduce consumption on a global scale and cost rich people a poo poo load of money with the payoff being that the planet continues to support a global civilization not only for the rest of our lives but for the rest of human existence." they do not think that that is a thing that is ever going to happen. They think "oh well it can't be that bad, because if it was then I would be living in a world where evil wins, and I can't accept that so I'll just pretend it's not true." Make no mistakes about it, we the human race have the power and technology to do just about anything, we just don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Public works projects with a total cost similar to world war 2 in which every country simultaneously enacts a radical and centrally planned program of carbon emissions reduction. Which is precisely why we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Which is precisely why we're hosed. They'll notice when Miami and New Orleans are gone. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:They'll notice when Miami and New Orleans are gone. "Good riddance" |/ 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
hey so I'm reading new york 2140, and curious if anyone has good info on his ice-butress/9-foot-surge-in-a-decade premise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:hey so I'm reading new york 2140, and curious if anyone has good info on his ice-butress/9-foot-surge-in-a-decade premise. Kim Stanley Robinson is generally pretty legit about his science/culture research. Without having read the book, I assume he's looking at sea level rise from the polar icecaps melting. http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/research/reports/surging-seas
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Sea ice often props up land ice as well. Melt the sea ice - or break it off - and glaciers flow far more rapidly into the sea. Glaciers and land ice in general hold mind-boggling volumes of water. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/07/science/earth/antarctic-crack.html?_r=0 Another: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/01/08/huge-iceberg-size-delaware-break-antarctica/amp/ quote:However, removing the barrier to flow will leave the entire shelf vulnerable and allow for the much larger Larsen C ice sheet to flow into the sea over time. This, in total, could lead to a 3.9-inch sea level rise. That may not seem significant but compare it to the 2.6-inch sea level rise that we’ve witnessed over the past 20 years. The decade-long uber sea level rise of many feet isn't provided for here alone and probably not anywhere, but it doesn't take but a handful of inches to start generating climate migrations at local scale. In a tangentially related thread, consider that the North Atlantic current has slowed down already. The little sea level rise and warming effects we have already seen may already be dangerous; more may be devastating. http://e360.yale.edu/features/will_climate_change_jam_the_global_ocean_conveyor_belt Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:How in the hell do we defeat climate change in a short timespan, by culling SE Asia? Make it noticeably worse to the point that nobody can ignore it but not so worse that it damages things beyond repair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
The Case for Acceleration 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Nah, we'll be rolling coal and making GBS threads out quivers full o' kids until well after the great cities are inundated. This train isn't slowing down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:This is how, yes. I feel like a lot of people do not entirely grasp the extent of the human race's power and productivity. If we, being the entirely of western society, really wanted to we could save the world in any way you'd like to think of it. We could save it from poverty, hunger, climate change, all these things are 100% physically possible, and within our grasp barring any political problems (all problems are political, there are no physical impossibilities with regards to any of these things). Certainly there are challenges involved, and sacrifices that would have to be made, and that's where the political issue comes into play. This is pretty much where I am. We could figure a way out of this, but some of the necessary steps we'd have to take would lead to greater globalization, a massive readjustment to the daily lives of most of the people on the planet, and a substantial reorganization of financial and energy reserves, up to and including the majority of coal and oil on the planet being made nearly worthless overnight. Everything we'd want to do sounds like a progressive wish list and is directly against the mood of the moment, so it's not getting done. Some work's being done, moreso than a lot of the doomsayers want to admit is there, all the more because a lot of it is down to market solutions, which are a big part of what got us into this mess to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Rime posted:Nah, we'll be rolling coal and making GBS threads out quivers full o' kids until well after the great cities are inundated. This train isn't slowing down. You need to move out of BC. Being able to witness the glaciers melting first hand is making you a bitter, angry man. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
At this point, it seems like we should agitate for Fortress Ameri-Canada. Sink the boats. Strafe the deserts. Accept no refugees. Export no food. Preparation > Mitigation We will be okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:At this point, it seems like we should agitate for Fortress Ameri-Canada. We will be okay... until the desertification of the prairies speeds up and polar vortexes start drifting down later in the year ruining entire seasons of crops leading to massive food shortages. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
vermin posted:Make it noticeably worse to the point that nobody can ignore it but not so worse that it damages things beyond repair. That's what we thought happened with lead, but it resulted in a generation of violent, retarded children who don't believe in Climate Change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Siberia. Article is pretty bland unless the idea of 7000 methane craters waiting to go off is funny, found this tidbit in another one that reblogged it: quote:Land-based permafrost, in Siberia, was estimated in 2013 to release 17 million tonnes of methane per year – a significant increase on the 3.8 million tons estimated in 2006, and estimates before then of just 0.5 million tonnes. I wonder what we're up to now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/03/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-at-record-low/quote:Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Rime posted:Meanwhile, in Siberia. Thanks to #45 we'll never have to know! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
We are absolutely and utterly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Has anyone sent this to Trump? It's from the Russian Academy of Science, so he might believe it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
I love that video of Natalia Shakhova visibly choking back tears as she describes the increasing methane releases on the east Siberian arctic shelf and how they're catastrophic, and then she tries to recover some shred of positivity but can't do it.  But it's all good, guys! All we need to do to meet the Paris accords is cut carbon emissions from all sources in half. Every Decade. For three decades. A 150% decrease by 2040. Along with some other, equally unlikely-to-ever-happen megaprojects, of course. This won't, of course, reverse the existing and still unknown damage which the climate is going to sustain from existing emissions. There, the thread title has been answered at last by the scientists involved. The question is solved. You can read the full paper over here if you're really interested in how impossible it is to stop things (from getting any worse than they already will thanks to the past century and a half of human malfeasance). Rime fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Debate & Discussion › The Climate Change Thread of Despair
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Rime posted:I love that video of Natalia Shakhova visibly choking back tears as she describes the increasing methane releases on the east Siberian arctic shelf and how they're catastrophic, and then she tries to recover some shred of positivity but can't do it. That's the face of someone who has seen the end of modern man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
We need to at one point shift "What is to be Done?" from solutions to simply actions governments and individuals can take to mitigate the consequences of the irreversible and gradually worsening damage that is to come, as well as to avoid being personally hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
I agree, I've advocated as much in the old thread. I mean, part of it is realizing poo poo is going to hit the fan and being somewhat more ruthless in accumulating wealth - not floating by because thing are nice right now. Right now is when you need to work your rear end off to better your standing as much as possible. Right now is the calm before the storm. Even if people don't loving believe poo poo will hit the fan in their lifetimes, unless they're already retired, this will benefit them even if by some miracle we aren't hosed in the next couple of decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Accumulate wealth in dollars? Do you think dollars will be worth anything if things progress like you say? And where to store those dollars? Surely not the stock market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
What do people think in terms of how hosed we are and how soon? Guy McPherson levels? Medieval living by the end of the century? Or is there still too much uncertainty to make an educated guess? I guess I'm asking as a westerner with a natural lifespan of another 50 years, will I probably end up starving/drowning first?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:20
|
|