Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

syscall girl: Nov 7, 2009; by FactsAreUseless; Fun Shoe

Telephones posted:

I think climate change is going to force americans to eat bugs and when americans have to eat bugs something will be done.

That's ludicrous

# ? Jul 18, 2017 11:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 08:06

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Insect protein really isn't much better than chicken in terms of conversion efficiency, with the added disadvantage that you often can't remove the alimentary tract. You just have to accept a bunch of bug guts will be in your bug burger.

Do chickens have souls? When you stare into their eyes does a sensitive intelligent creature look back? Because we're going to need to eat a lot of chicken for our future protein needs after beef is banned and the oceans turn into an anoxic acid bath.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 13:37

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Nocturtle posted:

Do chickens have souls? When you stare into their eyes does a sensitive intelligent creature look back? Because we're going to need to eat a lot of chicken for our future protein needs after beef is banned and the oceans turn into an anoxic acid bath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhMo4WlBmGM

# ? Jul 18, 2017 13:52

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

its fun to think of accidentally-optimistic things that would turn this into a hyper nightmare fast

like what happens when a handful of medical breakthroughs "solve" for even just 50% of cancer and/or heart-disease, and westernized lifestyle life expectancy shoots up to 110.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 14:27

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

StabbinHobo posted:

its fun to think of accidentally-optimistic things that would turn this into a hyper nightmare fast

like what happens when a handful of medical breakthroughs "solve" for even just 50% of cancer and/or heart-disease, and westernized lifestyle life expectancy shoots up to 110.

Repealing the ACA is starting to look like the right option.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 14:32

Thug Lessons: Dec 14, 2006; I lust in my heart for as many dead refugees as possible.

Paradoxish posted:

I'm also not sure what you mean by moralizing consumption, but it's a fact that demand for energy needs to come down if we're going to have any hope at all of staying within carbon budgets. Developed nations need to mostly decarbonize within a couple of decades just to limit the damage to +2C and that's an impossible target to hit from the supply side alone.

It's not a difficult point to understand so I suspect you're dissembling. You can very easily identify the sources of personal energy use. In the home they're widely-agreed on necessities like heating, refrigeration, washers and dryers. Outside the home it's cars. Identifying consumerism, (whatever that may be), as the problem makes no sense because the share of the average Westerner's carbon footprint that comes from consumer goods like iPhones and cheap plastic imports is vanishingly small.

As for the need to demand to go down, I largely agree, but setting targets for energy reduction with no clue as to how to implement them isn't going to work any better than setting CO2 emissions targets with no clue as to how to achieve them. If the solution is "developing countries enter a permanent recession and the poor get poorer" it's just not going to be implemented.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 15:15

JuniperCake: Jan 26, 2013

StabbinHobo posted:

its fun to think of accidentally-optimistic things that would turn this into a hyper nightmare fast

like what happens when a handful of medical breakthroughs "solve" for even just 50% of cancer and/or heart-disease, and westernized lifestyle life expectancy shoots up to 110.

Don't be misanthropic. It's fine if people survive to a ripe old age. They just need to have fewer kids.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 15:15

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Thug Lessons posted:

It's not a difficult point to understand so I suspect you're dissembling. You can very easily identify the sources of personal energy use. In the home they're widely-agreed on necessities like heating, refrigeration, washers and dryers. Outside the home it's cars. Identifying consumerism, (whatever that may be), as the problem makes no sense because the share of the average Westerner's carbon footprint that comes from consumer goods like iPhones and cheap plastic imports is vanishingly small.

This is a more complex issue than you're implying. The long term (and by long term I mean 10-30 years, not 50+ years) goal has to be net zero carbon emissions. Modern consumerism relies on commercial transport, which is itself a major carbon contributor. It's not moralizing to point out that this isn't sustainable if we want to take the optimistic view that the effects of climate change can be limited to a level that isn't completely catastrophic. We also need to somehow get people to stop driving, which is hardly a moral judgment on my part given that I love cars and love driving.

quote:

As for the need to demand to go down, I largely agree, but setting targets for energy reduction with no clue as to how to implement them isn't going to work any better than setting CO2 emissions targets with no clue as to how to achieve them. If the solution is "developing countries enter a permanent recession and the poor get poorer" it's just not going to be implemented.

No one is suggesting this. Those curves I posted a couple of pages back are for total global emissions. Every reasonable plan (and there aren't many, because the truth is that we likely can't pull this off) has steeper curves for developed nations so that developing nations can enact a more gradual decarbonization program. That doesn't change the basic fact that if we want to limit ourselves to +2C then global carbon needs to peak within a few years and developed nations will need to have near zero carbon economies within two decades.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 16:13

Thug Lessons: Dec 14, 2006; I lust in my heart for as many dead refugees as possible.

Paradoxish posted:

This is a more complex issue than you're implying. The long term (and by long term I mean 10-30 years, not 50+ years) goal has to be net zero carbon emissions. Modern consumerism relies on commercial transport, which is itself a major carbon contributor. It's not moralizing to point out that this isn't sustainable if we want to take the optimistic view that the effects of climate change can be limited to a level that isn't completely catastrophic. We also need to somehow get people to stop driving, which is hardly a moral judgment on my part given that I love cars and love driving.

You're right on all of this but you're using it to defend a lovely moralistic point about how climate change is caused by consumerism, i.e. an unwarranted, greedy and vapid focus on consumer products. These people absolutely are moralizing, and for that matter over-simplifying the issue by about an order of magnitude more than I am.

quote:

No one is suggesting this. Those curves I posted a couple of pages back are for total global emissions. Every reasonable plan (and there aren't many, because the truth is that we likely can't pull this off) has steeper curves for developed nations so that developing nations can enact a more gradual decarbonization program. That doesn't change the basic fact that if we want to limit ourselves to +2C then global carbon needs to peak within a few years and developed nations will need to have near zero carbon economies within two decades.

Again I agree with all of this, but it's also exactly what I meant by saying "setting targets for energy reduction with no clue as to how to implement them". Developing countries' goals of electrification, delivery of clean water and standard-of-living growth aren't compatible with zero carbon emissions by 2030. 2 C isn't impossible, it's just not going to happen short of one of the dubious geoengineering schemes panning out to everyone's pleasant surprise.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:25

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Thug Lessons posted:

2 C isn't impossible, it's just not going to happen short of one of the dubious geoengineering schemes panning out to everyone's pleasant surprise.

lol that you believe this

let me guess, we could also re-freeze greenland with the right technology too

geoengineering is no more a solution to climate change than fusion power is

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:27

Shifty Nipples: Apr 8, 2007

Nocturtle posted:

Insect protein really isn't much better than chicken in terms of conversion efficiency, with the added disadvantage that you often can't remove the alimentary tract. You just have to accept a bunch of bug guts will be in your bug burger.

Do chickens have souls? When you stare into their eyes does a sensitive intelligent creature look back? Because we're going to need to eat a lot of chicken for our future protein needs after beef is banned and the oceans turn into an anoxic acid bath.

Nothing has a soul aside from the genre of music, when I look into the eyes of my chickens I see they want to peck my eyes out. They can be intelligent to an extent, mostly stupid creatures but they do figure some things out.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:28

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Here's a short article on one of the problems switching to renewables for baseline power, namely the need to upgrade infrastructure to transmit power between regions to compensate for intermittent generation:

John Timmer posted:

...
A Swiss-UK research team has now looked at what this means for Europe, where renewable energy has boomed primarily among countries with access to the wind resources of the North Sea. They've found that certain weather patterns leave the North Sea region underproducing for over a week. But those same patterns would boost production relatively nearby�in the Balkans, Spain, and Scandinavia. While that would be enough to offset the North Sea's power slump, it won't do much to help until Europe integrates its grids.

...

But the key potential is in southeast Europe�the Balkans. Here, the activity was nearly a mirror image of that in the North Sea, meaning when it was calm there, the Balkans would produce 1.5 times the typical amount of wind power.

Renewing the grid

There are two small problems with this finding. One is that northern Scandinavia and the Balkans have almost no wind generation installed at the moment. And, even if there were, you'd run into issue two: there's not much transmission capacity between there and the countries that border the North Sea.

...

While the report mostly focused on wind, there's some good and bad news for solar. In many locations, solar and wind are anti-correlated, meaning when one's low, the other tends to produce more. That's the case for Europe, where you tend to get more solar power when wind speeds are low. But solar is also far less variable than wind, and there's a lot less of it right now. As a result, for solar to balance out the variability of wind, European countries would have to install ten times the existing capacity.

I'm posting this not so much to discuss the challenges of switching to renewable energy so much as to suggest the time for this kind of discussion has passed. If we're seriously going to try to meet those CO2 emission curves (we won't) we need to start churning out nuclear power plants NOW assembly line style to replace coal and natural gas for baseline power and to completely electrify transportation. There's no time to waste trying to figure out how to make renewable power work for baseline power and make all the necessary upgrades to transmission infrastructure. This problem is even harder in North America with the much larger geographical distances between populated areas. Proponents of renewable energy had the chance to present a realistic plan to switch to renewable for baseline generation, and we even had progressive champion Bernie Sanders arguing against nuclear in favour of renewables in the 2016 primary while still acknowledging the urgency of climate change. While it should (and will) continue to be developed I claim at this point it's a distraction in terms of figuring out how to quickly decarbonize.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:28

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Scandinavia is considered low on wind power? :raise:

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:33

susan b buffering: Nov 14, 2016

Nocturtle posted:

Here's a short article on one of the problems switching to renewables for baseline power, namely the need to upgrade infrastructure to transmit power between regions to compensate for intermittent generation:

I'm posting this not so much to discuss the challenges of switching to renewable energy so much as to suggest the time for this kind of discussion has passed. If we're seriously going to try to meet those CO2 emission curves (we won't) we need to start churning out nuclear power plants NOW assembly line style to replace coal and natural gas for baseline power and to completely electrify transportation. There's no time to waste trying to figure out how to make renewable power work for baseline power and make all the necessary upgrades to transmission infrastructure. This problem is even harder in North America with the much larger geographical distances between populated areas. Proponents of renewable energy had the chance to present a realistic plan to switch to renewable for baseline generation, and we even had progressive champion Bernie Sanders arguing against nuclear in favour of renewables in the 2016 primary while still acknowledging the urgency of climate change. While it should (and will) continue to be developed I claim at this point it's a distraction in terms of figuring out how to quickly decarbonize.

That's nice, what's your strategy for getting the public on board?

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:43

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

One of the issues with integrating the grids in Europe is southern Germany; apparently power producers there are really good at lobbying for not connecting to the North Sea region, since it'd cut into their profits. You kinda need Germany to get on board with any attempt at integration, since it's sitting right in the middle of Europe - though I suppose France getting integrated into the North Sea region to a much greater degree, as is currently in the works, is a good thing given their nuclear power.

MiddleOne posted:

Scandinavia is considered low on wind power?

Northern Scandinavia, though it really could have been written better.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:44

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

I'd like to add to the conversation on identifying personal energy expenditures that there is presently no conspicuous and broadly-appreciated status symbol for a particularly low-carbon lifestyle.

Analogy: If you're a rich 1%er, both a republican and a democrat will recognize so when you walk around in a recent-fashion well-tailored outfit and drive a black German saloon. What if you're a climate 1%er in the sense that you've eliminated cars from your life, produce your own renewable energy or participate in a renewable-only community, minimize packaging consumption, etc? There's not really much that you can do to get respect by nonverbally broadcast how hard you work and how serious you are on climate in the same way that you can demand respect due to your wealth. You can tell people about what you do, but that can become a "I vape / I'm vegan" nag fest; a rich person can convey wealth with to others in the time it takes to glance at someone's hair, clothes, car, or house.

In addition to visability, reception is a problem. Even if you, like, drive a plug-in Prius Plus and slather it in bumper stickers from the local energy and consumption reduction initiatives, half the country might chide you for being a silly alarmist libtard.

We're presently wired to seek status and approval, so the present lack in personal climate effort visability and reception is a huge roadblock to sufficiently addressing climate change in a capitalistic ground-up manner. Someone who accepts extreme restrictions on basics like food, energy, and industrial product consumption has no good options for status symbols.

Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jul 18, 2017

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:44

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

snip

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:54

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

skull mask mcgee posted:

That's nice, what's your strategy for getting the public on board?

I'll break an iceberg the size of Hawaii off Antarctica and set the entire west coast on fire.

You're welcome.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:57

Thug Lessons: Dec 14, 2006; I lust in my heart for as many dead refugees as possible.

NewForumSoftware posted:

lol that you believe this

let me guess, we could also re-freeze greenland with the right technology too

geoengineering is no more a solution to climate change than fusion power is

If you weren't so stupid you'd have noticed my tone conveyed extreme skepticism towards geoengineering! You are a very stupid man.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:58

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

Sorry for the Graun thinkpiece but this is relevant to the "what can I do?" question the thread keeps coming back to:

Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals

quote:

Would you advise someone to flap towels in a burning house? To bring a flyswatter to a gunfight? Yet the counsel we hear on climate change could scarcely be more out of sync with the nature of the crisis.

The email in my inbox last week offered thirty suggestions to green my office space: use reusable pens, redecorate with light colours, stop using the elevator.

Back at home, done huffing stairs, I could get on with other options: change my lightbulbs, buy local veggies, purchase eco-appliances, put a solar panel on my roof.

And a study released on Thursday claimed it had figured out the single best way to fight climate change: I could swear off ever having a child.

These pervasive exhortations to individual action � in corporate ads, school textbooks, and the campaigns of mainstream environmental groups, especially in the west � seem as natural as the air we breath. But we could hardly be worse-served.

While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71 percent. You tinker with those pens or that panel; they go on torching the planet.

The freedom of these corporations to pollute � and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response � is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last forty years, against the possibility of collective action. Devastatingly successful, it is not too late to reverse it.

The political project of neoliberalism, brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any democratic public will.

Its trademark policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts and free trade deals: these have liberated corporations to accumulate enormous profits and treat the atmosphere like a sewage dump, and hamstrung our ability, through the instrument of the state, to plan for our collective welfare.

Anything resembling a collective check on corporate power has become a target of the elite: lobbying and corporate donations, hollowing out democracies, have obstructed green policies and kept fossil fuel subsidies flowing; and the rights of associations like unions, the most effective means for workers to wield power together, have been undercut whenever possible.

At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neoliberal ideology stands in the way. Which is why, if we want to bring down emissions fast, we will need to overcome all of its free-market mantras: take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy � so that solar panels can go on everyone�s rooftop, not just on those who can afford it.

Neoliberalism has not merely ensured this agenda is politically unrealistic: it has also tried to make it culturally unthinkable. Its celebration of competitive self-interest and hyper-individualism, its stigmatization of compassion and solidarity, has frayed our collective bonds. It has spread, like an insidious anti-social toxin, what Margaret Thatcher preached: �there is no such thing as society.�

Studies show that people who have grown up under this era have indeed become more individualistic and consumerist. Steeped in a culture telling us to think of ourselves as consumers instead of citizens, as self-reliant instead of interdependent, is it any wonder we deal with a systemic issue by turning in droves to ineffectual, individual efforts? We are all Thatcher�s children.

Even before the advent of neoliberalism, the capitalist economy had thrived on people believing that being afflicted by the structural problems of an exploitative system � poverty, joblessness, poor health, lack of fulfillment � was in fact a personal deficiency.

Neoliberalism has taken this internalized self-blame and turbocharged it. It tells you that you should not merely feel guilt and shame if you can�t secure a good job, are deep in debt, and are too stressed or overworked for time with friends. You are now also responsible for bearing the burden of potential ecological collapse.

Of course we need people to consume less and innovate low-carbon alternatives � build sustainable farms, invent battery storages, spread zero-waste methods. But individual choices will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for everyone�not just an affluent or intrepid few.

If affordable mass transit isn�t available, people will commute with cars. If local organic food is too expensive, they won�t opt out of fossil fuel-intensive super-market chains. If cheap mass produced goods flow endlessly, they will buy and buy and buy. This is the con-job of neoliberalism: to persuade us to address climate change through our pocket-books, rather than through power and politics.

Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt. But it�s only mass movements that have the power to alter the trajectory of the climate crisis. This requires of us first a resolute mental break from the spell cast by neoliberalism: to stop thinking like individuals.

The good news is that the impulse of humans to come together is inextinguishable � and the collective imagination is already making a political come-back. The climate justice movement is blocking pipelines, forcing the divestment of trillions of dollars, and winning support for 100% clean energy economies in cities and states across the world. New ties are being drawn to Black Lives Matter, immigrant and Indigenous rights, and fights for better wages. On the heels of such movements, political parties seem finally ready to defy neoliberal dogma.

None more so than Jeremy Corbyn, whose Labour Manifesto spelled out a redistributive project to address climate change: by publicly retooling the economy, and insisting that corporate oligarchs no longer run amok. The notion that the rich should pay their fair share to fund this transformation was considered laughable by the political and media class. Millions disagreed. Society, long said to be departed, is now back with a vengeance.

So grow some carrots and jump on a bike: it will make you happier and healthier. But it is time to stop obsessing with how personally green we live � and start collectively taking on corporate power.

Don't beat yourself up if you're still eating beef or driving a car to work. Unless you have enough influence to change the behaviour of hundreds or thousands of people, it doesn't matter. Get involved in organised action. We have an 'effective leftism' thread, which isn't the same thing as climate activism but has a reasonable overlap.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 18:22

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Thug Lessons posted:

If you weren't so stupid you'd have noticed my tone conveyed extreme skepticism towards geoengineering! You are a very stupid man.

Repeat after me. The climate system is not going to stabilize at 2 degrees celsius over pre-industrial levels. The window of time where we could have made that a possibility has passed.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 18:29

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

StabbinHobo posted:

its fun to think of accidentally-optimistic things that would turn this into a hyper nightmare fast

like what happens when a handful of medical breakthroughs "solve" for even just 50% of cancer and/or heart-disease, and westernized lifestyle life expectancy shoots up to 110.

I knew we held onto that smallpox virus for a reason.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 18:35

double nine: Aug 8, 2013

anti-vaxxers have a point, makes you think.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 18:40

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Mozi posted:

I knew we held onto that smallpox virus for a reason.

My first instinct was that this would never happen because the oldest people were vaccinated, so this would only kill off the young, but then remembered a picture I saw today of all the GOP senators in one photo and I realized that I'm probably wrong.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 18:59

Thug Lessons: Dec 14, 2006; I lust in my heart for as many dead refugees as possible.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Repeat after me. The climate system is not going to stabilize at 2 degrees celsius over pre-industrial levels. The window of time where we could have made that a possibility has passed.

Depends what you mean. If you mean based on historical emissions, and a target date of 2100, then no. If you mean will we reduce emissions enough to stop >2 C warming, then yeah, we won't.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 19:19

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Thug Lessons posted:

Depends what you mean. If you mean based on historical emissions, and a target date of 2100, then no.

Alright now go deeper, what makes you think it's possible that we'll stabilize the climate at 2 degrees celsius over preindustrial levels by 2100? Bonus points if your answer doesn't include "well it's 80 years away and we have no idea what kinds of cool gadgets we'll invent by then"

Hell, why not shoot higher and say we'll be able to stabilize the climate at one degree celsius above preindustrial levels by 2100?

edit. Here's some data to get you started

NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jul 18, 2017

# ? Jul 18, 2017 19:21

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Anyone a little alarmed that after the initial CO2 spike, temperature leads CO2 for most of those hot periods?

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:12

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Arglebargle III posted:

Anyone a little alarmed that after the initial CO2 spike, temperature leads CO2 for most of those hot periods?

Those are the feedbacks like permafrost melting, forests burning, etc that are already happening today which will ensure all the milquetoast methods of reducing emissions Thug Lessons/Trabinskof has a hard on for will do literally nothing as things get worse regardless of what we do. That's not to mention things like methane clathrates melting, which is basically an apocalypse in climate terms (and likely at least 5-6 degree C away from what I understand)

There is no stabilization at this point. That went out the door in the 80s. 90s were about maybe managing the climate moving forward so we can continue to be productive. the 00s have been well maybe we can prevent millions of deaths in the next century. and now this decade has been hmm how can we prevent billions of deaths in the next 30 years

reality is rapidly approaching

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:21

Thug Lessons: Dec 14, 2006; I lust in my heart for as many dead refugees as possible.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Alright now go deeper, what makes you think it's possible that we'll stabilize the climate at 2 degrees celsius over preindustrial levels by 2100? Bonus points if your answer doesn't include "well it's 80 years away and we have no idea what kinds of cool gadgets we'll invent by then"

Hell, why not shoot higher and say we'll be able to stabilize the climate at one degree celsius above preindustrial levels by 2100?

From the IPCC's 5th report

quote:

Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st century if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue unabated. Under the assumptions of the concentration-driven RCPs, global mean surface temperatures for 2081�2100, relative to 1986�2005 will likely be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3�C to 1.7�C (RCP2.6), 1.1�C to 2.6�C (RCP4.5), 1.4�C to 3.1�C (RCP6.0), 2.6�C to 4.8�C (RCP8.5). Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081� 2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5�C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence), are likely to exceed 2�C above 1850-1900 for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence) and are more likely than not to exceed 2�C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence). Temperature change above 2�C under RCP2.6 is unlikely (medium confidence). Warming above 4�C by 2081�2100 is unlikely in all RCPs (high confidence) except for RCP8.5, where it is about as likely as not (medium confidence). {12.4.1, Tables 12.2, 12.3, Figures 12.5, 12.8}

All of these scenarios have atmospheric CO2 that is higher than our current ~400ppm. However the climate will not be stabilized and warming will continue for centuries to come.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:23

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

lol at citing the ancient IPCC report that just ignored feedbacks because they didn't know enough

add permafrost melting into your numbers slugger

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:24

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

lol at citing the ancient IPCC report that just ignored feedbacks because they didn't know enough

Do you have any well cited sources that go into which feedback systems the IPCC AR5 excludes but are now modeled scientifically?

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:26

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

Do you have any well cited sources that go into which feedback systems the IPCC AR5 excludes but are now modeled scientifically?

here you go http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8533

"modeled scientifically" yeah throw those weasel words in there in advance

from 2012:

quote:

All climate projections in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due for release in 2013-14, are
likely to be biased on the low side relative to global temperature because the models did not include the
permafrost carbon feedback.

Like they literally knew this was not going to be in before they released it. the IPCC is a politically motivated body and should be treated with scrutiny.

There's plenty of science on the effects of permafrost melting. The fact that we don't know enough(allegedly) isn't an excuse to ignore it imo.

NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jul 18, 2017

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:27

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

here you go http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8533

"modeled scientifically" yeah throw those weasel words in there in advance

from 2012:

Like they literally knew this was not going to be in before they released it. the IPCC is a politically motivated body and should be treated with scrutiny.

There's plenty of science on the effects of permafrost melting. The fact that we don't know enough(allegedly) isn't an excuse to ignore it imo.

lol at wanting a scientific model rather than a blog post is somehow weasel words. Thanks for the link!

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:35

Thug Lessons: Dec 14, 2006; I lust in my heart for as many dead refugees as possible.

NewForumSoftware posted:

lol at citing the ancient IPCC report that just ignored feedbacks because they didn't know enough

add permafrost melting into your numbers slugger

It's so amazingly ignorant to say the IPCC "ignores feedbacks". What do you think climate sensitivity is? Based on the greenhouse effect alone warming would be far lower than any of those estimates.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:35

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Thug Lessons posted:

It's so amazingly ignorant to say the IPCC "ignores feedbacks".

They literally did that and it has been common knowledge since before the fifth report was released. What's ignorant is just finding out now and acting all shocked that the IPCC's 5th report isn't the most accurate science we have today.

quote:

lol at wanting a scientific model rather than a blog post is somehow weasel words. Thanks for the link!

Who's posting blog articles? You're welcome for the link, sad to think you've been posting in this thread for so long and didn't know that.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:38

Trainee PornStar: Jul 20, 2006; I'm just an inbetweener

Trabisnikof posted:

Do you have any well cited sources that go into which feedback systems the IPCC AR5 excludes but are now modeled scientifically?

Glad you brought that up, the other guy is making me depressed.
I know things are going to be bad & there's no denying it, I just kinda hold out hope that my kids are going to be ok.

I don't know enough about all this so I'm like a 'battered housewife' for this thread, I know its bad for me, but I keep coming back.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:38

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Your kids will be fine. Worst case scenario they live a much more normal human life (in the context of our entire existence as a species) and have to live without the modern technology we so desperately "need". The good news is humans adapt incredibly well and even with much lower material wealth they will still laugh, cry, fall in love, and maybe even have children of their own

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:44

Huzanko: Aug 4, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

Trainee PornStar posted:

Glad you brought that up, the other guy is making me depressed.
I know things are going to be bad & there's no denying it, I just kinda hold out hope that my kids are going to be ok.

I don't know enough about all this so I'm like a 'battered housewife' for this thread, I know its bad for me, but I keep coming back.

NFS is insane, FYI. Don't listen to him.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:48

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

Who's posting blog articles? You're welcome for the link, sad to think you've been posting in this thread for so long and didn't know that.

Not everyone has the hubris to assume they understand any of these systems in their entirety. Even the best climate scientists admit they don't understand the entire system, just the areas they personally study. I'm personally more aquatinted with the energy system but even then only as an amateur.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Your kids will be fine. Worst case scenario they live a much more normal human life (in the context of our entire existence as a species) and have to live without the modern technology we so desperately "need". The good news is humans adapt incredibly well and even with much lower material wealth they will still laugh, cry, fall in love, and maybe even have children of their own

I agree with most of this, although I'm not sure how modern technology is supposed to disappear but I guess that's from the risk of global conflict or something.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 08:06

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Huzanko posted:

NFS is insane, FYI. Don't listen to him.

You honestly shouldn't read the thread if these sorts of thoughts are running through your head

Huzanko posted:

I'm not arguing against people doing what they can and also becoming better people.

I am saying that every piece of climate change news basically says we're going to be living in Fury Road inside of 50 years and, oh, by the way, the Japanese want to find and burn all the methane and speed it all up.

It makes it very difficult to just go to work and get through the day, especially if you are lucky enough to have people you care about.

Huzanko posted:

Like I said, earlier, I agree with you, but when I hear poo poo about the world basically ending in cinematic fashion inside 50 years, it is demotivating. Many posts in this thread make it sound like nothing but massive systemic change next Tuesday will avert a complete and total apocalypse. That doesn't sound to me like a problem anyone at all can do anything about.

I am not saying that is true, but that's why I asked about this timeline, which was responded to with a comment saying that things that were supposed to happen in 2100 are happening right now.

If it's not hopeless, that's great, but if we have 10 years to do anything about this, it is very much hopeless. I don't know enough about the situation to know what's true and what's hyperbole.

Huzanko posted:

While I agree with you, the constant proclamations of doom that come from this thread just make me want to eat a bullet, or at least cease having long-term goals.

But please, tell me why I'm the insane one here.

Trabisnikof posted:

I agree with most of this, although I'm not sure how modern technology is supposed to disappear but I guess that's from the risk of global conflict or something.

"Modern technology" is a huge umbrella and obviously we're not going to lose all of it. There are things that we have that are incredibly reliant on things like global supply chains and cheap electricity that will probably stop being economically viable as time goes on. Or at least will change drastically from what we know today. Things like transportation, food, etc.

NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jul 18, 2017

# ? Jul 18, 2017 20:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »