|
TildeATH posted:Have you ever heard about the Sea Peoples or the Cimbri or really any group of people that, throughout history, went a whupping and a whomping every living thing that moves within an inch of its life? I was being sarcastic.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:Have you ever heard about the Sea Peoples or the Cimbri or really any group of people that, throughout history, went a whupping and a whomping every living thing that moves within an inch of its life? We'll be able to scale up our anti-pirate operations as needed. I don't think globally minded humanitarianism will survive as A Thing or really be taken seriously. When the Middle East and North Africa starts emptying out into Europe, it will end there. When Latin America starts emptying out into US/CAN simultaneous with our own internal displacement issues, it will end here. My personal expectation is that politics will get more authoritarian, populations will get more religious and global geopolitics will be about who can get to 2100 with the least amount of damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:By mid-century, 2050, a little more than 30 years from now, Pakistan could be out of water. Good god, I was hoping to die before the poo poo got really bad but this poo poo can snowball so fast. You're going to see pretty serious effects much sooner than this, I bet. Alex Steffen has a decent thread on this topic from a few months ago: https://twitter.com/AlexSteffen/status/857321548952215552 The short version is that you shouldn't be surprised to see major economic fallout from climate change in the US in the next 5-10 years (or even sooner) simply because there's so much money wrapped up in very vulnerable areas. Awareness of the problem is already beginning to bubble up and it's only going to take one or two storms on par with something like Sandy to cause a panic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Everyone will just blame Trump/Liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Everyone will just blame Trump/Liberals. I promise that in 20 years the conventional wisdom will be that it was the science community's fault for not warning us. Conservatives will point to the least alarming ipcc projections and claim that action would have been taken if only scientist hadn't misrepresented the threat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I promise that in 20 years the conventional wisdom will be that it was the science community's fault for not warning us. Conservatives will point to the least alarming ipcc projections and claim that action would have been taken if only scientist hadn't misrepresented the threat. I agree with this. People will screech 'why didn't they warn us this would happen, we would have listened!' and so it will still be the scientist's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:We'll be able to scale up our anti-pirate operations as needed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I was being sarcastic. Oh, hard to tell in here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Oh, hard to tell in here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:India just fired up a fast-breeder reactor fueled by thorium rods. A good sign! Isn't that the one that turns thorium into uranium (which can then be used for more fuel)? So, you know, still awesome but also presents that annoying proliferation problem and is therefore harder to export as a power generation model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:How do you even live in temperatures this high?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Good times. As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants quote:These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Isn't that the one that turns thorium into uranium (which can then be used for more fuel)? So, you know, still awesome but also presents that annoying proliferation problem and is therefore harder to export as a power generation model. Pretty much everyone who wants and we are concerned of having nuclear weapons already has them. And if India wanted to give out nuclear weapons it already can, regardless of this reactor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Have you ever heard about the Sea Peoples or the Cimbri or really any group of people that, throughout history, went a whupping and a whomping every living thing that moves within an inch of its life? Meh, the Sea Peoples were fighting Bronze on Bronze, it was pretty even keel armament wise for most of the empires they swarmed to death. Modern weaponry and extremely dense landmine fields will make quick work of even the thickest migratory waves, the real threat is out-of-touch militant leftists who believe that mowing down humans by the untold millions is a "war crime"  rather than a necessity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The average American is responsible for about 18 tons of CO2 per year. A tree will store about 50 pounds of co2 in a year of growing. Therefore you really only need to plant 700 trees per year every year to offset your personal carbon use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
city of doves posted:that's actually not that many, i'm going to cover australia with trees and if you give me like ten bucks i'll plant your 700 seedlings and give you periodic updates on how they're going Ok but you have to do it every year forever because the carbon goes back into the atmosphere after 40 years or however long the trees live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
also adding a tree to a landscape isn't just a matter of addition/subtraction. each tree multiplies how efficiently the land around it retains water and nutrition. so planting 10 trees instead of 1 tree in a stand that's going to function, thrive and reproduce doesn't create ten intense one-tree zones next to each other. it still creates the intense one-tree zone but also a still-intense ten-tree zone that encompasses the whole grove, and that second zone is going to have a nice damp microclimate and support a lot of biodiversity. so it'll multiply more quickly. so if you planted seven hundred trees in a year, in twenty years they could have realistically turned into a large forest or at least a very intensive small forest
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
what i'm saying is plant more trees and shrubs. they're better at horticulture than we are and they want to put it all back together
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
like many of you i'm basically not expecting to live past forty but you can plant a lot of trees in that time and forests are going to be the main drivers of atmospheric correction once we're gone
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Ok but you have to do it every year forever because the carbon goes back into the atmosphere after 40 years or however long the trees live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Assume we are planting goon trees though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
even if you live in an apartment at least grow some flowers for the bees, they are going to be important and they kind of need our help right now
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
city of doves posted:even if you live in an apartment at least grow some flowers for the bees, they are going to be important and they kind of need our help right now lol if you think any fauna exist in my city beside grackles
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
city of doves posted:my friend, there are male and female trees, and when they come together something very special happens Then you might as well just let the land return to forest, but let me explain why that isn't happening and why we ripped all the trees out in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:lol if you think any fauna exist in my city beside grackles
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
city of doves posted:your job is to feed and train those grackles to disperse small pellets of sarin gas First viable solution to climate change I've seen so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
but you have to plant trees for the grackles to live in. in time the trees will attract other birds, and by then everybody in the city will have died or fled and you can start planting understorey layers of shrubs around the established trees to attract reptiles and small mammals
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
as for humans i think eventually we'll live underground
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Rime posted:Meh, the Sea Peoples were fighting Bronze on Bronze, it was pretty even keel armament wise for most of the empires they swarmed to death. Modern weaponry and extremely dense landmine fields will make quick work of even the thickest migratory waves, the real threat is out-of-touch militant leftists who believe that mowing down humans by the untold millions is a "war crime" Can you please gently caress off with your genocidal racist bullshit? It was bad enough last year when you were whining about how unfortunate it was that the Green Revolution meant millions of Indians ended up not starving to death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Isn't it funny that there's no media that even attempts to portray the coming global collapse? There were hundreds of films like On the Beach and Threads and even Dr Strangelove that helped the public understand the existential threat of a nuclear apocalypse. Meanwhile we're hurtling towards likely extinction and the closest thing to portraying it is stuff like Utopia and Children of Men, which aren't even really about Climate Change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
There was Incorporated on Syfy, I guess. Climate change isn't really an exciting kind of future, though. People being poorer and some cities being underwater doesn't have much on Mad Max, but a lot of science fiction is starting to portray the effects of climate change as a background detail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Isn't it funny that there's no media that even attempts to portray the coming global collapse? There were hundreds of films like On the Beach and Threads and even Dr Strangelove that helped the public understand the existential threat of a nuclear apocalypse. Meanwhile we're hurtling towards likely extinction and the closest thing to portraying it is stuff like Utopia and Children of Men, which aren't even really about Climate Change. Nuclear war didn't have to contend with a dedicated political campaign backed by billions of dollars attempting to convince people that 'actually, nuclear weapons don't exist and are a liberal hoax' Plus, climate change is more difficult to portray compared to bombs going off; it's relatively slow moving and (so far) you can't point to one individual event and say it absolutely wouldn't have happened without climate change, instead you have to look at data over several decades and point out the increasing frequency and severity of such events as warming increases. That's why the most famous Hollywood portrayal of climate change doom, The Day After Tomorrow, had to vastly accelerate things and included ridiculous scenes like Jake Gyllenhaal outrunning superfreezing air... by closing a door.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
I think this demonstrates how poorly climate change has been depicted in popular culture. Like even in the doomed sadbrains thread the best conception a lot of people have of climate change is that water will very slowly and gently swallow some beach front property. And somewhere far away people will suffer and die, but it will not happen here where we are safe. The limits to growth model indicates there's probably going to be a global collapse within 50 years. That means there's going to be a death toll in the billions as famines and migrations begin on an unprecedented scale. Nation sized armies of desperate hungry refugees will be fleeing areas where there is no longer any food or water or electricity. Westerners will watch in disbelief ask the flood of cheap goods and labour disappears within a year, and then the increasingly regular food shortages begin. Society begins to break down as hungry and angry people tear each other apart for whatever commodities and resources are left. The few places where governments maintain order only do so by becoming nightmarishly totalitarian military dictatorships. There will be a strict rationing, severe curtailing of human rights, and a sharp increase in fanatically racist ideology. Previously unthinkable nuclear exchanges will suddenly be on the table, because even the leaders of what remains of the United States also suffer from malnutrition and have been taught from the age of 7 that it would be better to kill everything on the planet then surrender their resources to the Chinese forces, who are going to rape and kill and cannibalize their wives and children, etc There's actually going to be a lot of spectacle! Digiwizzard fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jul 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Isn't it funny that there's no media that even attempts to portray the coming global collapse? There were hundreds of films like On the Beach and Threads and even Dr Strangelove that helped the public understand the existential threat of a nuclear apocalypse. Meanwhile we're hurtling towards likely extinction and the closest thing to portraying it is stuff like Utopia and Children of Men, which aren't even really about Climate Change. There's plenty of books that do it, but yeah, movies and climate change don't really go together. However I do wonder if our decade-long rash of zombie movies is kind of a sublimated response to the whole thing. Anyway, fiftysomething years ago, John Wyndham of Day of the Triffids/Village of the Damned fame wrote a novel about mysterious underwater nasties that (half-century old spoilers ahead) attempt to wipe out humanity by slowly melting the glaciers. I remember reading it and thinking, "hah, if the earth's sea level ever begins to sloooowly rise, humanity really would be utterly screwed! Oh wait."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Isn't it funny that there's no media that even attempts to portray the coming global collapse? There were hundreds of films like On the Beach and Threads and even Dr Strangelove that helped the public understand the existential threat of a nuclear apocalypse. Meanwhile we're hurtling towards likely extinction and the closest thing to portraying it is stuff like Utopia and Children of Men, which aren't even really about Climate Change. There's plenty of sci-fi books on the subject that are very good and oh wait the people who need to learn this don't read books okay nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Isn't it funny that there's no media that even attempts to portray the coming global collapse? There were hundreds of films like On the Beach and Threads and even Dr Strangelove that helped the public understand the existential threat of a nuclear apocalypse. Meanwhile we're hurtling towards likely extinction and the closest thing to portraying it is stuff like Utopia and Children of Men, which aren't even really about Climate Change. Movies like The Day After Tomorrow permanently salted the earth on anything even remotely serious about the environment ever being put to film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Interstellar did it but people were too busy jackin it to hilarious fake physics nonsense to be like "Hmm what is the actual problem driving this movie?" Logan did it too. I agree the overall volume of culture doesn't even come close to nuclear apocalypse stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Can you please gently caress off with your genocidal racist bullshit? It was bad enough last year when you were whining about how unfortunate it was that the Green Revolution meant millions of Indians ended up not starving to death. Please See: Digiwizzard posted:I think this demonstrates how poorly climate change has been depicted in popular culture. Like even in the doomed sadbrains thread the best conception a lot of people have of climate change is that water will very slowly and gently swallow some beach front property. And somewhere far away people will suffer and die, but it will not happen here where we are safe. You don't get it, FourLeaf. The world is not a hugbox, it does not give a poo poo about your bushy tailed utopian fantasies. This is what humans have done to each other for all of recorded history, and it is what they will do to each other to the bitter end. Do you think we will change from our current foreign policy in the event of mass climate upheaval? The West is right now, today, bombing the gently caress out of states which have been thrown into unrest by prolonged climate change. As for that piece of poo poo Borlaug: do you think it's better that hundreds of millions will now starve to death or die in utterly horrific conditions, after a lifetime of squalor and poverty, rather than tens of millions? They're going to die either way, the green revolution just kicked the can down the road and upped the death toll exponentially while also drastically harming the environment. You are either a dipshit or willfully ignorant if you can't see how utterly hosed up that situation is. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
It was politically useful to have populations scared of the red menace or the capitalist aggressor. Unifying fear of the foreign. Not as useful when the thing to be scared of is the greed inherent to humanity and the absolute corruption of absolute powers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:Interstellar did it but people were too busy jackin it to hilarious fake physics nonsense to be like "Hmm what is the actual problem driving this movie?" Yah, if you take out the space travel bits, Interstellar was basically Climate Change: The Movie. Nothing exciting: a moribund society that places a stronger emphasis on agriculture (without doing away with automation!), where the Average joe blames Scientists for not having done anything to fix the problems that lead to this, while simultaneously somehow believing the problems won't get worse so they needn't change their ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:19
|
|