|
call to action posted:So optimists, give us your take now People will still make fart jokes provided there's enough other people to eat and make farts with
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
call to action posted:So optimists, give us your take now  these little guys are fungivores so they're vital for spore dispersion. only they and the bandicoots, which are also extinct in many areas, perform this role in our ecosystem - so their disappearance has led to a decline in fungi, with obvious implications for soil health and the ability of the land to naturally reforest itself one step at a time
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am bad at water macro-issues. Why would the rivers not refresh at (roughly) the same levels? The glaciers normally recharge from precipitation, right? Why wouldn't that precipitation still fall, just, you know, now directly flowing into the rivers? (And not having a supply buffer but that's not a thing that really matters in the long term as far as flow over twenty years or whatever) You're mostly right but glaciers are better at storing water than snowpack in the long-term. Think more in terms of variability - once the glaciers are gone and you have an unusually dry winter in the Himalayas that's going to reduce river volume, and if you have an unusually wet one that's going to create unusually high water levels. But you're correct in your intuition that it won't be causing rivers to run dry. There's a huge amount of uncertainty about exactly how it's all going to play out though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am bad at water macro-issues. Why would the rivers not refresh at (roughly) the same levels? The glaciers normally recharge from precipitation, right? Why wouldn't that precipitation still fall, just, you know, now directly flowing into the rivers? (And not having a supply buffer but that's not a thing that really matters in the long term as far as flow over twenty years or whatever) The useful feature of glaciers is the addition of melt water in spring when you need water for agriculture. It's essentially wasted if it flows out during winter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Correct. Flooding is a risk, but the main problem comes when you get dry seasons and receive less water than expected, particularly because consumption is going the opposite of down as time passes. This is a problem the region is already experiencing and India's response has been to build reservoirs to better manage the Indus and tributaries waters (much to Pakistan's objections).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're mostly right but glaciers are better at storing water than snowpack in the long-term. Think more in terms of variability - once the glaciers are gone and you have an unusually dry winter in the Himalayas that's going to reduce river volume, and if you have an unusually wet one that's going to create unusually high water levels. But you're correct in your intuition that it won't be causing rivers to run dry. There's a huge amount of uncertainty about exactly how it's all going to play out though. The likely result is you're probably going to have both years of drought and flash floods since there essentially isn't a long-term form of storage for that water. If anything I think the long-term impact may be even further urbanization, and a possibly a further reliance on food imports. Also, yeah, you are also going to have "water wars" over who gets essentially gets first access to whatever water that remains. The GAP/SAP in Turkey not only had intense political fallout but very well may have had a long-term impact on the internal stability of Syria/Iraq (obviously only one of many). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
That's about what I expected, the most credible optimistic response to climate change is somewhere between a shrew being reintroduced to Australia and "we'll pull through it because we always have, no I don't have any real reason to believe that"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
call to action, I'm sorry to say, but the total collapse of human civilization won't happen during your lifetime. You might get lucky and get a local collapse, though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Nobody said it will, douche. Life is going to get a lot more miserable though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
call to action posted:Nobody said it will, douche. Life is going to get a lot more miserable though. Show us where anyone in the latest round of responses actually said call to action posted:"we'll pull through it because we always have, no I don't have any real reason to believe that" or gently caress off forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
just lol if you don't think "We'll pull through because we always have" isn't the only thing left for the accelerationists celebrating the transition to natural gas to promise those who actually care about the future
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Every single person that relies on an IPCC certified report, particularly any non-8.5 report, is a hopium huffing know nothing, if that helps
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
this thread could benefit from the dog tax what do you guys think 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:just lol if you don't think "We'll pull through because we always have" isn't the only thing left for the accelerationists celebrating the transition to natural gas to promise those who actually care about the future no i care harder than u
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
The eternal war in this thread between people who want to be optimistic and people who want to be pessimistic is seriously one of the most awful things in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The eternal war in this thread between people who want to be optimistic and people who want to be pessimistic is seriously one of the most awful things in D&D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're mostly right but glaciers are better at storing water than snowpack in the long-term. Think more in terms of variability - once the glaciers are gone and you have an unusually dry winter in the Himalayas that's going to reduce river volume, and if you have an unusually wet one that's going to create unusually high water levels. But you're correct in your intuition that it won't be causing rivers to run dry. There's a huge amount of uncertainty about exactly how it's all going to play out though. Well the Yangtze frequently runs dry now even in normal years. And with demand increasing even proportionately small decreases in flow have severe consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The eternal war in this thread between people who want to be optimistic and people who want to be pessimistic is seriously one of the most awful things in D&D. I know it's annoying to people who just want to post about climate change, but these arguments need to be hashed out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Well the Yangtze frequently runs dry now even in normal years. And with demand increasing even proportionately small decreases in flow have severe consequences. It doesn't run dry in normal years, though it did during an unprecedented recent drought. The second part's correct though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The eternal war in this thread between people who want to be optimistic and people who want to be pessimistic is seriously one of the most awful things in D&D. If you put the usual offenders on ignore, the thread really tightens up. Thug Lessons posted:I know it's annoying to people who just want to post about climate change, but these arguments need to be hashed out. No, they really don't. It's almost always just some idiot making GBS threads on mitigation/adaptation chat or some idiot who's all 'Silver Bullets or nothing!'
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
call to action posted:Every single person that relies on an IPCC certified report, particularly any non-8.5 report, is a hopium huffing know nothing, if that helps Hell yeah dude. gently caress climate science, and gently caress cutting emissions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:If you put the usual offenders on ignore, the thread really tightens up. I really don't understand this perspective of people who come to a forum for debates and then get this mad when people debate something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The eternal war in this thread between people who want to be optimistic and people who want to be pessimistic is seriously one of the most awful things in D&D. Well considering there's literally no reason to believe we'll be able to beat this, outside of "maybe the science is wrong", I would agree that the continued fighting is indeed pretty awful Thug Lessons posted:Hell yeah dude. gently caress climate science, and gently caress cutting emissions. Wow, you're intensely stupid. Climate science is the only thing that may keep human life in an organized, civilized form on this planet through 2100. The bullshit, fake-rear end carbon sequestration schemes that have no basis in physical or economic reality represents a hideous accelerationism that I simply can't subscribe to. Every single RCP scheme has literal hopium for devices that cannot and will not exist embedded within them, no reference to the clear positive feedback loops we're currently seeing, etc. If I'm talking to a climate denier, maybe I'll convince them that real change is needed now - like ending capitalism level change. I'll never convince someone who's been blinded by globalist propaganda like the IPCC RCPs. call to action fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I really don't understand this perspective of people who come to a forum for debates and then get this mad when people debate something There's a difference between debating a subject and debating someone's inability to understand either the subject or what's being said. Baseball chat would suck if all you ever did was argue that baseball isn't hockey
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
call to action posted:Well considering there's literally no reason to believe we'll be able to beat this, outside of "maybe the science is wrong", I would agree that the continued fighting is indeed pretty awful Hideous accelerationism and globalist propaganda. I like the ring of that. There might be some hope for preventing catastrophe and ending capitalism at the same time if we can achieve those things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:There's a difference between debating a subject and debating someone's inability to understand either the subject or what's being said. If somebody is saying something completely out of whack then they have to be corrected or else other people will start believing their bullshit. But I mean, by all means, if you want to put me or anyone else who loves to argue on ignore because you hate arguments then do it for your own sake; I just don't understand why people feel that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
call to action posted:Wow, you're intensely stupid. Climate science is the only thing that may keep human life in an organized, civilized form on this planet through 2100. The bullshit, fake-rear end carbon sequestration schemes that have no basis in physical or economic reality represents a hideous accelerationism that I simply can't subscribe to. Every single RCP scheme has literal hopium for devices that cannot and will not exist embedded within them, no reference to the clear positive feedback loops we're currently seeing, etc. Based on the scientific literature what do you believe will happen then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Bates posted:Based on the scientific literature what do you believe will happen then? We won't adhere to any emissions targets put forth by the IPCC report
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I just don't understand why people feel that way. Because it's a rationalization. Disagreement isn't a cash-only business you can launder dumb bullshit through to turn it into the good stuff. You think there's value in arguing that baseball and hockey are the same thing, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Because it's a rationalization. Disagreement isn't a cash-only business you can launder dumb bullshit through to turn it into the good stuff. At the risk of belaboring an argument about arguments, can you point to what I'm saying that's as absurd as saying baseball = equals hockey? Because from my perspective I see people come in here and smear their poo poo all over the walls while raving about "the IPCC's globalist propaganda" and I feel compelled to point out that's nonsense lest someone believe it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Notice how he latches on to the words I used, not the actual content of my post. Reminds me of the Michael Mann response to that awesome piece on climate in NYM
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
call to action posted:Notice how he latches on to the words I used, not the actual content of my post. Reminds me of the Michael Mann response to that awesome piece on climate in NYM Dude, if you want to prove your point, start backing it up with evidence. Evidence from the "real" climate scientists, or whomever you believe to have in your corner. Because you certain sound like a raving lunatic and going after climate scientists in defense of that terrible, universally-panned article isn't helping the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Dude, if you want to prove your point, start backing it up with evidence. Evidence from the "real" climate scientists, or whomever you believe to have in your corner. Because you certain sound like a raving lunatic and going after climate scientists in defense of that terrible, universally-panned article isn't helping the case. here's my evidence that we wont hit any of the IPCC emissions targets: our current emissions
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
For those of you arguing our emissions have exceeded all RCP scenarios, do you have any peer reviewed sources that explicitly state that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:For those of you arguing our emissions have exceeded all RCP scenarios, do you have any peer reviewed sources that explicitly state that? The chart I posted earlier is taken from this article: http://sci-hub.io/10.1038/nclimate2148 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:here's my evidence that we wont hit any of the IPCC emissions targets: our current emissions That would have been a cause for alarm as of the 5th report but emissions have leveled off since then. They've barely risen since 2014. It's likely we've fallen below the RCP8.5 scenario. We're still not on track for RCP2.6 and I'm almost certain we'll exceed it, but there's a huge difference between 2.5-3C and 5C that you might get on RCP8.5. Edit: Your above link is from 2014
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Also here's the thing: you can't actually project future emissions going literally decades into the future based on current emissions because we can change emissions levels. Indeed, we already have. Neither the 2010-2013 rise nor the 2014-2017 leveling-off can be taken as indicative of future emissions levels because there are factors pulling in both directions on each and no one has a crystal ball to predict which will prevail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Also here's the thing: you can't actually project future emissions going literally decades into the future based on current emissions because we can change emissions levels. Indeed, we already have. Neither the 2010-2013 rise nor the 2014-2017 leveling-off can be taken as indicative of future emissions levels because there are factors pulling in both directions on each and no one has a crystal ball to predict which will prevail. could you do some predictions looking at historical trends? or is this just we can't know for sure so let's assume the best? also how do you square this circle:  maybe... natural feedbacks will overpower any sort of minuscule emissions reductions we manage to pull off?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:could you do some predictions looking at historical trends? or is this just we can't know for sure so let's assume the best? More like we can't assume the worst like you're claiming we should. But no, I don't think historical projections would do much good predicatively since decarbonization is relying on diversification into new energy sources, (gas and renewables), as well as poo poo like EVs that are really just hitting the market. You can do some interesting thought experiments like "how much CO2 would we need to emit to industrialize Africa" but even those couldn't really have predictive value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:More like we can't assume the worst like you're claiming we should. But no, I don't think historical projections would do much good predicatively since decarbonization is relying on diversification into new energy sources, (gas and renewables), as well as poo poo like EVs that are really just hitting the market. You can do some interesting thought experiments like "how much CO2 would we need to emit to industrialize Africa" but even those couldn't really have predictive value. I'm not claiming we should assume the worst, im claming we are on track to surpass the worst projections of the IPCC's most recent report which shouldn't be surprising given that the report chose to leave out things we know a lot more about now
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:49
|
|