|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:I like the new thread title. It betrays a certain anxiety. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Sep 20, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...b-a7954496.htmlquote:Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
So why does this seem to conflict with literally everything else posted in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Great! To celebrate, I'm flying to australia to kick off a cruise round the world
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Heres the actual article It’s basically the opposite of this thread and saying if we take the lower bound of the models and get net carbon emissions to 0 by 2030 we can warm by only 1.5C! It won’t let me copy paste out of the article but just read the very last paragraph. The scenario portrayed is not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Heres the actual article It also ignores the 'feedback' mechanisms with the permafrost melting and the release of methane. Ditto on the methane hydrides in the Oceans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Oh good, a 'slightly better chance', fills me with hope and joy :/
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
So we're at the point of "everything is fine" people defining "fine" as 1.5C warming by 2100. Cool. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Oh good, a 'slightly better chance', fills me with hope and joy :/ Russian roulette is cool and good 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
call to action posted:So why does this seem to conflict with literally everything else posted in this thread? The article closes with the assertion that it is within the realm of physical possibility that we keep warming to 1.5C, as opposed to it being literally impossible, which seems both consistent with this thread's consensus (as much as there is one) and not especially comforting. fomo sacer fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So we're at the point of "everything is fine" people defining "fine" as 1.5C warming by 2100. Well, at this point, limiting the damage to 1.5C by 2100 would be a laudable achievement. Considering the sociopolitical challenges to doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, at this point, limiting the damage to 1.5C by 2100 would be a laudable achievement. Considering the sociopolitical challenges to doing so. Physically possible as in "0 net carbon by 2030" So politically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Physically possible as in "0 net carbon by 2030" I mean, politically unlikely, gently caress yes. But impossible? I can think of a few ways it could happen and not all of them involve mega-deaths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
It should be associated with climate denial to model any scenario that assumes zero net carbon by 2030. Might as well just insert happy hopes and dreams in there, too.Trabisnikof posted:I mean, politically unlikely, gently caress yes. But impossible? I can think of a few ways it could happen and not all of them involve mega-deaths. OK, how do we get there in a way that's politically unlikely but possible?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
[quote="“call to action”" post="“476590858”"] It should be associated with climate denial to model any scenario that assumes zero net carbon by 2030. Might as well just insert happy hopes and dreams in there, too. OK, how do we get there in a way that’s politically unlikely but possible? [/quote] "It is physically possible to do this" is a fine article for a scientific journal. This is different from a policy position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"It is physically possible to do this" is a fine article for a scientific journal. This is different from a policy position. I disagree. There's no basis in physical reality for the amount of carbon sequestration they assume. And scientists that put forth "[if we went full communism now] everything will be fine" fuel deniers and gently caress up the intensity of the message that's needed to make real change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
call to action posted:I disagree. There's no basis in physical reality for the amount of carbon sequestration they assume. And scientists that put forth "[if we went full communism now] everything will be fine" fuel deniers and gently caress up the intensity of the message that's needed to make real change. quote:Nature Geoscience is a monthly multi-disciplinary journal aimed at bringing together top-quality research across the entire spectrum of the Earth Sciences along with relevant work in related areas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Good on Nature, then, they helped advance the "climate change isn't as bad as libtards made it out to be" message. For science!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
I agree, researchers and scientists should definitely only publish their work if it's politically expedient. I can't imagine why that's a crazy or ridiculous thing to advocate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Breitbart is on top of it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Static Equilibrium posted:I agree, researchers and scientists should definitely only publish their work if it's politically expedient. I can't imagine why that's a crazy or ridiculous thing to advocate. Ironic, considering the reason they publish this kind of ridiculously optimistic bullshit is because it's politically expedient to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
That's not what that means
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah it falls under modeling, the point is it isn't a political policy journal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
call to action posted:It should be associated with climate denial to model any scenario that assumes zero net carbon by 2030. Might as well just insert happy hopes and dreams in there, too. "Trying to cut carbon emissions is actually just climate denial."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:"Trying to cut carbon emissions is actually just climate denial." Read the article, sweetheart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I don't know how it's possible to read the journal article and come to the conclusion that it's "ridiculously optimistic," considering the path it imagines to 1.5C is explicitly described as both historically unprecedented and no where near our present political reality. Edit: missing an un- fomo sacer fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Why even discuss the use of carbon sequestration that will not and cannot exist? Why not just make scientific models that assume the God Spirit will inhale the world's atmospheric carbon on February 20, 2020?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
call to action posted:So why does this seem to conflict with literally everything else posted in this thread? Sample bias.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:"Trying to cut carbon emissions is actually just climate denial." Zero net emissions by 2030 means that in less than 15 years we no longer emit to generate power, no longer drive ICE cars, no longer fly airplanes or operate ships that emit CO2, etc. It's not practical in any sense and it's not something that can be seriously discussed, unless you actually do want to start talking about how a totalitarian world government focused on solving climate change would actually be a good thing. I saw an article on this study a few days ago and I was surprised anyone even bothered to post about it here, because the "optimistic" assumptions in it are pretty much the crazy carbon reduction curves that everyone always writes off entirely. I don't know why it's even news. Edit- Like, it's really weird to see a post like this from you because the only way this happens is if you acknowledge that all the people who are always screaming "not good enough!" are right and we start crash decarbonization right this instant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Zero net emissions by 2030 means that in less than 15 years we no longer emit to generate power, no longer drive ICE cars, no longer fly airplanes or operate ships that emit CO2, etc. It's not practical in any sense and it's not something that can be seriously discussed, unless you actually do want to start talking about how a totalitarian world government focused on solving climate change would actually be a good thing. This paper is valuable if all it does is show us the cost of our political and social choices. We're going to choose not to phase out carbon emissions fast enough, for the reasons you imply, that the social costs are too high and our decision-making too diffuse. But just because we won't choose to stop burning coal et al doesn't mean we shouldn't study what would happen if stopped. Just because society will choose to do the wrong thing doesn't mean we shouldn't study what we would do if we did the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
I'm not actually criticizing the paper at all, I just find the articles about it (which, aside from the Independent, mostly seem to be coming up from right-leaning publications) kind of eye roll worthy. They mostly amount to saying that climate change actually isn't all that bad as long as we completely reinvent society tomorrow which, I mean, yeah, I think most people in this thread would agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Assuming carbon sequestration is a horrible loving gamble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Zero net emissions by 2030 means that in less than 15 years we no longer emit to generate power, no longer drive ICE cars, no longer fly airplanes or operate ships that emit CO2, etc. It's not practical in any sense and it's not something that can be seriously discussed, unless you actually do want to start talking about how a totalitarian world government focused on solving climate change would actually be a good thing. In this specific instance I'm just objecting to someone saying obscenely stupid poo poo. We aren't going to hit zero emissions by 2030 but calling a paper that outlines such a scenario climate denial is garbage and it annoys me. Edit: I think what I said is a fairly accurate characterization of what he and a bunch of people here actually believe. They don't believe carbon emissions can be cut, and if they could it would make no difference, and we are going to blow past RCP8.5. And as far as I'm concerned that's an entirely pernicious narrative with no redeeming value. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
have any of you pointless human tragedies planted any trees yet i'm volunteering 20 hours a week to reforest the wetlands near my house
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:have any of you pointless human tragedies planted any trees yet Reforestation is not viable carbon capture. Good luck fighting coastal erosion tho!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why even discuss the use of carbon sequestration that will not and cannot exist? Why not just make scientific models that assume the God Spirit will inhale the world's atmospheric carbon on February 20, 2020? Massive changes in agriculture would sequester carbon but people would have to eat far less animal product.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
lma writers name is Harry Cockburn
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
It's been gone over countless times in this thread that we are well within the time frame of averting catastrophic climate change if you ignore everything but physical possibility. This is not news. A great deal of things are physically within humanity's reach, that does not mean for a second that any of those things will ever get done. Anyone who thinks that that article is anything new hasn't been paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Reforestation is not viable carbon capture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
the old ceremony posted:it captures more carbon than posting on the internet Posting on the internet carries a lower risk of accidentally spawning more humans than going out for community activities 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 01:05
|
|