|
It's that life isn't meaningless that this is such a sad thing.
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
not believing that political parties like the Democrats and the DSA can do nothing meaningful to stop climate change is not nihilism, it's realism if you think the problem is the wrong side of the american political spectrum is in power you are just literally clueless as to the scale of the problem
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Uhh no it couldn't there are enforcement mechanisms in all kinds of international treaties. NAFTA ring a bell? Fees can be ignored. Nothing in international politics bar threats of violence and economic sanctions ever hold weight unless the nation-states willfully concede to it. International institutions don't govern through threats, they do so through soft power. If you perceive the lack of an enforcement mechanism as some kind of sign of the prospective effectiveness of a international treaty then you are either ignorant of history or delusional.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Fees can be ignored. Nothing in international politics bar threats of violence and economic sanctions ever hold weight unless the nation-states willfully concede to it. International institutions don't govern through threats, they do so through soft power. If you perceive the lack of an enforcement mechanism as some kind of sign of the prospective effectiveness of a international treaty then you are either ignorant of history or delusional. It's not so much that an enforcement mechanism would guarantee effectiveness, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. And the lack of it speaks to just how important it is to the signatories. Saying that because international law has no real ability to enforce punishments on its members no enforcement mechanisms actually matter seems like a bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What's the deal with accusing anyone who thinks we can't stop climate change of being a nihilist? Do you know what nihilist means? No they have no idea what words mean, that's why they're so hopeful with their petitions.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's not so much that an enforcement mechanism would guarantee effectiveness, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. And the lack of it speaks to just how important it is to the signatories. Saying that because international law has no real ability to enforce punishments on its members no enforcement mechanisms actually matter seems like a bit of a stretch. Not if it stops there from being a treaty in the first place. If we're going to talk flaws of environmental treaties then I think unambitious goals are a much bigger problem than enforcement mechanisms that could never get enforced in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
My Nihilism essay: According to dictionary.com, Nihilism is defined as "
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:My Nihilism essay: Good work, Johnny, now cut off this pinkie toe.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:not believing that political parties like the Democrats and the DSA can do nothing meaningful to stop climate change is not nihilism, it's realism
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Ok so now connect the dots and explain how people who believe we can't stop climate change "reject all religious and moral principle in the belief that life is meaningless" You're the kind of idiot that doesn't understand variance and thinks they can divine the one true outcome from a statistical mess. A distribution of outcomes with a significant amount in the "Really Bad" and "Completely hosed" category still doesn't let you extrapolate any sort of dumbass vague statement like "we can't stop climate change." Divining signal out of noise is the same naive conspiratorial bullshit that leads to poo poo like the Seth Rich story - or more closer to your particular kind of brain damage - Guy McPherson (although he seems a fair clip more rational than you). Spend more time reading climate papers and less time spinning your brain in neutral. You do actual climatologists no favors because your braindead hyperbole just creates more denialists.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Meanwhile, we're still on course to get an iceberg a quarter of the size of Wales. Yes, that would make it the biggest in recorded history - Iceberg B-15, which appeared in 2000, was 4,200 square kilometres, while this one is roughly 5,000.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
I'm guessing there are people arguing right now that "everything is pointless, I'm not saying you should stop trying, but I'm going to attack you for trying?"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm guessing there are people arguing right now that "everything is pointless, I'm not saying you should stop trying, but I'm going to attack you for trying?" I'm just arguing that this whole "We can still change things with personal consumption choices!" and "I'm sure European style parliamentary reform can still change things!" is childish bullshit. But yeah, good luck fixing the climate, Democratic Socialists. So, I suppose I would think a climate nihilist would be someone who thinks the world is guaranteed to be Mad Max in 20 years. I don't think it will be, but I think it will be so dramatically changed and resilient to any small fixes we could reasonably implement in the next 20 years that we might as well focus on changing the tone of the conversation in preparation for how to deal with the dramatically different environmental effects we should expect.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:You're the kind of idiot that doesn't understand variance and thinks they can divine the one true outcome from a statistical mess. A distribution of outcomes with a significant amount in the "Really Bad" and "Completely hosed" category still doesn't let you extrapolate any sort of dumbass vague statement like "we can't stop climate change." Uhh no actually quite the opposite. I can't and nobody can. "We can't stop climate change" is the reality of the situation. It's happening, it's here, and we should dissuade ourselves of the notion that working within existing political frameworks is going to have any sort of long term consequence without greater reformation of society as a whole. TildeATH posted:I'm just arguing that this whole "We can still change things with personal consumption choices!" and "I'm sure European style parliamentary reform can still change things!" is childish bullshit. Exactly
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Things are gonna be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Believing that no one can do anything about climate change because it's already too late and we've kicked off the feedback mechanisms that lead to +10C so nothing anyone does matters is nihilism (though it also might be realism). No, it's pessimism Not caring about it would be nihilism
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:You're the kind of idiot that doesn't understand variance and thinks they can divine the one true outcome from a statistical mess. A distribution of outcomes with a significant amount in the "Really Bad" and "Completely hosed" category still doesn't let you extrapolate any sort of dumbass vague statement like "we can't stop climate change." Since you've read climate papers I'd like to ask your opinion on why papers 15-20 years ago sorely underestimated warming and ghg contribution, and what have more recent studies done to rectify these model shortcomings especially in regards to ghg emission verification?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
You guys deserve climate change.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Rastor posted:As I said before, This is really sad, honestly. I think direct action could make a difference, but working with the Democratic Party structure? lol, these dudes can't even get behind single payer and you think they're gonna save the world Wanderer posted:The point is that you've at least done something. Even if it means nothing on the world scale, it means plenty on the local scale... and at the end of the day, you exist on the local scale. Considering yourself a failure before you start because you weren't born with enough stroke to change the course of history is some A-level depression logic. Nothing personal but this is where we're gonna disagree. Global conditions are prerequisite to determining local conditions, if the world is dying of heat stroke than it will actually not matter at all that you made some sort of futile effort. Now, if you're doing this for personal mental gratification, go for it - everyone needs something to get through the day and keep them sane in this Sin Cursed World. call to action fucked around with this message at 21:43 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
call to action posted:This is really sad, honestly. I think direct action could make a difference, but working with the Democratic Party structure? lol, these dudes can't even get behind single payer and you think they're gonna save the world Maybe we should start framing it different. Start saying we want to go to war against climate change and put emphasis on the war part of the sentence. Maybe also talk about how there would be massive profit in the continuation of the human species as a whole. Emphasis on profits. Might convince a few of them, if not the lobbyists who convince the politicians.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Do you think humanity will survive our upcoming massive die off or is this our extinction event?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
It's not going to be an apocalyptic event, it will just be a lovely future where a lot of people in third world countries die and the first world countries struggle mightily.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Do you think humanity will survive our upcoming massive die off or is this our extinction event? There won't be a mass die-off.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Do you think humanity will survive our upcoming massive die off or is this our extinction event? No this isn't going to kill humanity, it's just going to cause all sorts of pain and suffering to most of the parts of the world that have had to endure the majority of the pain and suffering of the last 300 years (Subsaharan Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Indonesia, China). People who live in Florida aren't going to be happy and lots of migration will probably lead to authoritarians in Europe but the US has lots of surplus agricultural capacity and a vast hinterland we call Canada.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Since you've read climate papers I'd like to ask your opinion on why papers 15-20 years ago sorely underestimated warming and ghg contribution, and what have more recent studies done to rectify these model shortcomings especially in regards to ghg emission verification? So there are several historical trends that have shown up: Sulfate aerosol cooling hid warming effects. Warming was historically understated until recently due to the negative temperature effects of aerosol sulfate emissions (https://skepticalscience.com/How-much-did-aerosols-contribute-to-mid-20th-century-cooling.html). We also haven't until recently accounted for how much things like global dimming due to coal mining reduce net temperature and how much things will heat up simply by doing things like not burning coal. Denialists will often use the 20th century pause from sulfates to argue that global warming isn't happening. Really, it just masked a much worse warming trend. Sea Level Rise has been repeatedly understated due to better understanding of ice dynamics that is a constantly undergoing level of research. It turns out there's a lot more ways to melt and fracture ice than to heat water to -1.8c. As we better understand the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland glaciology we keep marking our sea level rise predictions upward. A lot of the effects of climate change are also due to changes in global circulation of air and water, and some of these changes are driven by GHG emissions and some aren't. These are notoriously nonlinear systems that are hard to model. Changes in North Atlantic Deep Water currents and vertical overturning drastically changes surface water temperatures in ways that we haven't expected nor modeled until recently. We're also seeing things we could have never predicted with models, like formation of a North Atlantic-based current through the Nares Strait. We also do not have high-resolution 3-dimensional bathymetric ocean data across the globe to accurately model what global ocean circulation would look like. The core issue with models is that all models are wrong, but some models are useful. The useful models let us understand forcing effects that we could think of. Back 30 years ago they let us ascertain things like "Wow these temperature changes definitely can't be explained by Milankovitch cycles alone, it requires GHG forcing to make the outcomes match reality." Now we are asking questions like "What happens when the Arctic ocean becomes increasingly 'Atlantified' by North Atlantic Deep Water." As we're able to answer the recent questions, we keep repeatedly finding positive feedbacks. Finally, I think you could argue that a lot of climatology papers have errored on the side of least drama for quite some time. Edit: Disclaimer I just read this stuff as an interested bystander. My degree was in math and I do computer janitoring now. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 22:25 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:There won't be a mass die-off. Unless war came.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
The Washington Post posted:Financial firms lead shareholder rebellion against ExxonMobil climate change policies https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...climate-change/
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:There won't be a mass die-off. You know how people die in heat waves when power grid blackouts happen? Yeah, imagine that on several layers of steroids.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Unless war came. I don't see how nuclear war could come from climate change. (Human stupidity could always cause nuclear war though, always exciting.) I don't see how water wars will do more than heap more suffering onto those that are already suffering. Notorious R.I.M. posted:You know how people die in heat waves when power grid blackouts happen? Yeah, imagine that on several layers of steroids. You mean like old people? The elderly dying a bit earlier because of the heat isn't going to cause population collapse.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:You mean like old people? The elderly dying a bit earlier because of the heat isn't going to cause population collapse. Human beings die at a 100% humidity temperature of 95F because they can no longer export heat. If you look at record heat waves with high humidity, we're starting to become close more often. Reportedly an Iraqi heatwave in 2015 already surpassed this: https://weather.com/news/news/iraq-iran-heat-middle-east-125-degrees Fortunately we only need to increase our power consumption to keep temperatures lower. I'm sure there won't be any runaway feedbacks from that!!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:You know how people die in heat waves when power grid blackouts happen? Yeah, imagine that on several layers of steroids. "Mass die offs" still isn't really the right term. People will definitely die, but we're not talking about huge swathes of the population vanishing. Lots of people are going to die in floods and migrations and probably wars too, but it's going to require some pretty unforeseen poo poo going down for it to cause meaningful changes to the global population.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:"Mass die offs" still isn't really the right term. People will definitely die, but we're not talking about huge swathes of the population vanishing. Lots of people are going to die in floods and migrations and probably wars too, but it's going to require some pretty unforeseen poo poo going down for it to cause meaningful changes to the global population. So where do you want to set the boundary at? 1B+? There are definitely lots of scenarios that put us at 1B+ deaths and a lot of them can be affected by human action. There will be much larger zones of uninhabitability across the globe, and they will cause massive human migrations because a lot of them will be inhabited. Coincidentally, a lot of the first regions to suffer are in North Africa and the Middle East. I hear we're dying to take in refugees from there. You realize recent models are talking about 8C warming in urban areas right? Plants don't do photosynthesis above 40C and humans don't live past the 100% humidity equivalent of 35C. You should probably recalibrate your expectations in terms of the magnitude of expected changes, and this doesn't even begin to touch on the upscaling of expected sea level rise that will destroy places like Bangladesh.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
The problem with the thread's pessimism is that there is still an awful lot of combustible carbon sitting in the crust, and we can still avoid putting those deposits in the atmosphere. We're certainly going to experience a really lovely few centuries, but we can still make them worse, and there is still an opportunity to prevent that outcome.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:The problem with the thread's pessimism is that there is still an awful lot of combustible carbon sitting in the crust, and we can still avoid putting those deposits in the atmosphere. We're certainly going to experience a really lovely few centuries, but we can still make them worse, and there is still an opportunity to prevent that outcome. Similarly, the problem with optimism is that we often speak of climate change in terms of GHG emissions, not change in terms of the amount of dead people. I prefer to see it as "We can still keep the death toll in the millions instead of billions." I don't like euphemisms like "A really lovely few centuries."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
There's also a bunch of really fun things like running out of arable soil or the great oceanic conveyer belt grinding to a halt
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:The problem with the thread's pessimism is that there is still an awful lot of combustible carbon sitting in the crust, and we can still avoid putting those deposits in the atmosphere. We're certainly going to experience a really lovely few centuries, but we can still make them worse, and there is still an opportunity to prevent that outcome. Yeah I agree with you, but I have done a 180 on how it gets done. I wouldn't tell somebody not to reduce their individual carbon footprint but this problem will either be solved or exacerbated by political action almost entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Yeah I agree with you, but I have done a 180 on how it gets done. I wouldn't tell somebody not to reduce their individual carbon footprint but this problem will either be solved or exacerbated by political action almost entirely. Oh, and I agree with that too.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:No, it's pessimism Pessimism doesn't prevent action. Realism doesn't prevent action. What does is being a 2edgy4you teenager or mentally ill sadbrains desperate to normalize how worthless their life is by convincing everyone that wallowing in self pity and making constant excuses is actually how you are supposed to do things. These people don't care about anything other than attention.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I don't see how nuclear war could come from climate change. Are you kidding me? I think it's pretty simple to note that three countries that will be significantly adversely affected by climate change (India, Pakistan & China) are all nuclear powers.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:Are you kidding me? Sure, but how is this going to result in theor governments using nuclear weapons? Climate change might increasy internal dissent, trigger civil war,. destabilize the government as it's doing in the Middle East & Africa. But why would this result in the use of nuclear weapons? They nuke their own people to achieve??
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 23:55
|
|