|
enraged_camel posted:Just the opposite: save/hoard as much as you can now. You'll need the money later to be able to afford increasingly more scarce resources and habitable/safe areas. Like I said, gently caress that - if we're actually in some prepper's wet dream I'd rather not relive The Road when it meant sacrificing ~*snorkeling*~ or fewer hours at work back when you didn't have to protect your Spam with a Smith and Wesson
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
call to action posted:Like I said, gently caress that - if we're actually in some prepper's wet dream I'd rather not relive The Road when it meant sacrificing ~*snorkeling*~ or fewer hours at work You should definitely ~*snorkel*~ as much as possible. Enjoy what's left of the coral reefs while we still have them! But the scenario I described does not have to be as extreme as the one depicted in Mad Max or anything. We'll still have civilization, it's just that basic amenities (food, clean water, housing) will be a lot more scarce and therefore expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Do you think, in the bleak future, that they'll continue to provide food and water to people in prison, or will they just say "gently caress this" and gun them down against a wall? Or do prisoners just get turned into slaves? I can't imagine much resources going into keeping people locked up and fed in a world of scarcity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:Do you think, in the bleak future, that they'll continue to provide food and water to people in prison, or will they just say "gently caress this" and gun them down against a wall? Or do prisoners just get turned into slaves? I can't imagine much resources going into keeping people locked up and fed in a world of scarcity. They already are slaves in the US. But you also skipped the alternative where we stop locking so many people up and instead try a more pro-social approach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:You should definitely ~*snorkel*~ as much as possible. Enjoy what's left of the coral reefs while we still have them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think we actually all agree to that. I think we can have +4.5C, the death of billions and not have the end of modern industrialized society. Society will certainly be disrupted and industries will have to change but if anything humans will rely on industrial activity more and more not less and less. Here's your solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzddAYYDZkk
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
If(when) the world reaches 4.5C and the "billions die" point I don't think it's really possible to guess what society looks like afterwards. I agree a stripped down industrialized society could very well survive and is in fact achievable with current technology. On the other hand you can imagine the global economy and ecosystems collapse quickly enough that the survivors of the resulting famines have to return to subsistence farming wherever that's still possible. It's not productive to speculate which outcome is more likely, especially as at that level of warming our understanding of the relevant feedback processes is limited. Ideally we'd take a proactive approach and not risk the possibility of such a bad outcome but it's clear we're taking the opposite approach and using the lack of certainty over the consequences to continue with business as usual.Ardennes posted:I get a feeling that in a century this era of history is going to be looked on in extremely negative terms. Granted, in a perverse egocentric way, it might be more welcoming for some if industrialized society would end, then our great grandchildren wouldn't be there curse us for destroying the world. No matter the outcome it will be clear to all that white westerners impoverished future generations in exchange for 50 years of automobile ownership and cheap consumer products. I do wonder how my generation (millenials) will be viewed. On the one hand we'll likely be the first to deal with the consequences of climate change, especially if the more rapid-warming scenarios end up coming to pass. Alternatively we could equally well be viewed as the last people who could have prevented or at least minimized the disaster were we not desperately trying to reproduce our parent's lifestyles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I do wonder how my generation (millenials) will be viewed "They continued to throw tantrums on social media and dead gay comedy forums instead of actually doing anything about the problem!  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They already are slaves in the US. From what I understand it would be more likely for some Elon Musk kinda dude to come up with a miracle solution to climate change than it would be for people not being thrown into the hoosgow for smoking a joint in the ol' US of A.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:No matter the outcome it will be clear to all that white westerners impoverished future generations in exchange for 50 years of automobile ownership and cheap consumer products. I do wonder how my generation (millenials) will be viewed. On the one hand we'll likely be the first to deal with the consequences of climate change, especially if the more rapid-warming scenarios end up coming to pass. Alternatively we could equally well be viewed as the last people who could have prevented or at least minimized the disaster were we not desperately trying to reproduce our parent's lifestyles. I guess in defense of millenials (we will see), but that the turning point honestly happened before they (I guess we) reached political influence. It will probably be another 20 years before millennials have control over most political decisions. That said, if you look at millennials that already have significant influence (Zuckerberg), it is hard not to think it will still be business as usual in the future. Basically, I think most of the blame will be focused on older generations but we will still be considered a "twiddling our thumbs" generation that didn't make the necessary sacrifices. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Millennials will escape the hate for the truly denialist generations but instead will earn their own special scorn for the self-entitled Cassandra complex that leads to our choices of inaction rather than helping the future generations born entirely into a post climate change society. Why help build worm farms when we can lament how we used to get to eat red meat and fruit all year long?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
If we're talking about rich western nations then it's honestly kind of a stretch to assume that things will get so bad that future generations will be looking back and "blaming" anyone. Things will likely be materially worse for our kids and grandkids and probably great grandkids than they are for us, but the world is just going to be how it is to them and it'll include all the trappings of technological society that will make them feel lucky to live in the times that they do. Things that seem inconceivable to us (like, say, the Great Lakes region being the economic hub of the US) will just be how things are, especially if they don't have to live through the slow churn of internal population migrations. The developing world? Yeah, what's left of it in 50 years is going to be loving pissed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:If we're talking about rich western nations then it's honestly kind of a stretch to assume that things will get so bad that future generations will be looking back and "blaming" anyone. Things will likely be materially worse for our kids and grandkids and probably great grandkids than they are for us, but the world is just going to be how it is to them and it'll include all the trappings of technological society that will make them feel lucky to live in the times that they do. Things that seem inconceivable to us (like, say, the Great Lakes region being the economic hub of the US) will just be how things are, especially if they don't have to live through the slow churn of internal population migrations. Eh, there is already quite a bit of anger by millennials and gen-xers toward boomers, I doubt that isn't going to intensify. Yeah, I think everyone appreciates Netflix and everything but I don't think the developed world is going to escape what is coming even if they have a monetary cushion, and erratic weather patterns and super-storms will also hit the developed world such as much, just not with the same death tolls. Also, we are already seeing growing economic disparity in the developed world, and that also isn't going to be getting better. If you come from an upper-middle-class family, maybe you will get lucky and still have a relatively comfortable life but even that isn't guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Climate change is going to ruin the appreciation of a bunch of old media too. It's a mad mad mad mad world wont be as funny when the culture feels driving ICE cars is far worse than smoking cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Climate change is going to ruin the appreciation of a bunch of old media too. It's a mad mad mad mad world wont be as funny when the culture feels driving ICE cars is far worse than smoking cigarettes. That said, I don't think I could sit and watch Gone With the Wind all the way through either. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
The conversation on the past page could have occurred in 1920s Germany or Britain. We're going through a pessimistic phase of discourse. If you think you have some reasonable, reliable vision of what future generations are going to think you're out of your mind. At best we can posit constraints, but even that fails because more or less every significant historical development was unanticipated. And it's not just climate change, because you've got these huge political, economic, technological and military spheres that are going to determine the shape of things to come. You haven't got a clue. Stay woke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I do wonder how my generation (millenials) will be viewed. When I saw this quoted I had a flashback to teachers from middle school through university telling the class that we would have to be the ones to solve climate change. Feels even stupider now than when they said it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
What we need is a modern day ELF going around brutally gutting energy CEO's, shipping magnates, and politicians and hanging them from lampposts by their own entrails, but somebody is going to show up to the first meeting with a smartphone in their pocket and there goes the entire operation. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The conversation on the past page could have occurred in 1920s Germany or Britain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Rime posted:What we need is a modern day ELF going around brutally gutting energy CEO's, shipping magnates, and politicians and hanging them from lampposts by their own entrails, but somebody is going to show up to the first meeting with a smartphone in their pocket and there goes the entire operation. you first buddy
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Absum posted:When I saw this quoted I had a flashback to teachers from middle school through university telling the class that we would have to be the ones to solve climate change. Feels even stupider now than when they said it. from about twelve years old i knew that i was watching the slow collapse of the biosphere, that i'd live to see the carnage, and that the people i was supposed to trust to protect me from things like the end of the world weren't interested in doing that because my life, and seven billion other lives, were worth nothing to them. at the same time i was supposed to study and work toward a full-time middle-class office career. i graduated high school straight into the global financial crisis. now not only was the collapse of the biosphere clearly accelerating and still nobody was interested in fixing it, but i'd wasted my life until that moment laser-focused on achieving the lifestyle that i'd been promised, which now didn't exist, and hasn't existed since. physically my childhood was better than 99% of children across the globe and it's probably going to be better than my kids'. but it was still haunted by this overwhelming sense of spiritual emptiness and complete helplessness in the face of an apocalypse that everybody could see on the horizon but nobody seemed to be worried about except for me on the other hand my kids won't have any of that because they'll be planting trees from the moment they're free of the womb and the world will already be in chaos so they'll just accept that as normal
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:you first buddy I'm perfectly happy watching sitting back, enjoying the peak of my existence, and watching the bulk of humanity perish as industrial civilisation collapses, because the alternative is humans surviving and continuing to multiply while the entire natural environment of earth is consumed and destroyed - an outcome is quite unacceptable to me. It's up to people with an interest in saving their own skins and not watching their children suffer like Congolese orphans who will have to upgrade from keyboard warriors and do the needful here. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Rime posted:I'm perfectly happy watching sitting back, enjoying the peak of my existence, and watching the bulk of humanity perish as industrial civilisation collapses, because the alternative is humans surviving and continuing to multiply while the entire natural environment of earth is consumed and destroyed - an outcome is quite unacceptable to me. It's up to people with an interest in saving their own skins and not watching their children suffer like Congolese orphans who will have to upgrade from keyboard warriors and do the needful here. wow what a badass
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Another interesting visualization: https://twitter.com/kevpluck/status/926231701621178369 https://twitter.com/planktoncounter/status/922425873369767937
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Rime posted:What we need is a modern day ELF going around brutally gutting energy CEO's, shipping magnates, and politicians and hanging them from lampposts by their own entrails, but somebody is going to show up to the first meeting with a smartphone in their pocket and there goes the entire operation. If it happens, there's no way it won't end up being a bunch of morons mad about nucular atomz and GMOs who end up killing people who don't actually matter as contributors to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 08:45
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Yeah people jerking off about a climate change-driven purge of the rich tend to overlook the fact that it’s way more likely we’ll see mass lynching of minorities whether it’s minorities, immigrants, and refugees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:yea and you'd be the guy with super future vision being like "don't worry the jews are going to be fine in fact they'll probably get their own country soon, stop being so negative and alarmist" That's a lie. I've consistently said we risk millions if not billions of deaths from climate change if we don't commit to very serious mitigation and adaptation. I can go back and quote the half-dozen times I've said this, but I dunno, why bother? Proving you guys wrong has never worked in the past; you just believe whatever you prefer to and never let the facts get in the way of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
right, you seem to have a decent grasp of the models and likelyhoods, you just have some weird obsession with tone-policing the poo poo out of everyone who dares oversimplify their reaction a bit to fit the disparity of the situation. you are the technically-correct "well-actually" guy thats the absolute worst kind of "ally" a cause can have, because *in practice* all you do is undercut and retard
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Proving you guys wrong has never worked in the past This isn't geometry you aren't proving poo poo about climate science by cherrypicking the right lines out of the right papers. But for example: Thug Lessons posted:I have read the literature on permafrost feedbacks. All of them estimate Arctic emissions will be dwarfed by human emissions. In the worst case scenario, the Arctic permafrost might emit 160 GtCO2e cumulatively by 2100.Humans emit 40 GtCO2 every year, and that's excluding methane, N2O, CFCs, etc. I honestly think you just read news articles and collapse porn and that's where you get these ideas that Arctic permafrost is going to kill us all. quote:Did you even bother reading your own article? They cite exactly the studies I'm talking about, noting that "Our estimate for the amount of carbon released by 2100 is 1.7–5.2 times larger than those reported in several recent modelling studies", (note that reverse-engineering these multiples gives you roughly the figures I stated). If you really want, I can go ahead and cite another half-dozen more recent modeling studies that give roughly similar results. You've cherry-picked a survey, (which is speculative by its very nature), to get the results you want. Even when you play fast and loose with the science and make claims that aren't correct you're sitting here playing the same truth before facts game you're accusing everyone else of. Seems like cherry picking matters only when it disagrees with your sweeping "actually all climate scientists believe this". You keep making arguments to scientific consensus but are wholly willing to simply disregard the science done by people like James Hansen because "they are alarmist". Son, you've got ideological blinders on and even if it was necessary for some scientific literature savant to come in here and play pedant you aren't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Yeah that's all entirely true. I'm "technically correct", which is another way of saying that I'm correct, and I like to tone police doomers. I find doomerism repulsive. I've seen people just outright state "we need to leave the third world to die; we'll be lucky to even save white people from extinction" here. I sure hope I'm undercutting and retarding that narrative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I've seen people just outright state "we need to leave the third world to die; we'll be lucky to even save white people from extinction" here. Quote it quote:Yeah that's all entirely true. I'm "technically correct", which is another way of saying that I'm correct, and I like to tone police doomers. You're technically correct in the sense that you've made many sweeping statements which are categorically false. Hell, enjoy this one too: Thug Lessons posted:The is a clear consensus that a runaway greenhouse effect is not going to happen, a consensus as strong as that the greenhouse effect is occurring at all. Clear consensus indeed. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:This isn't geometry you aren't proving poo poo about climate science by cherrypicking the right lines out of the right papers. You snipped out the next part though, where I outline that even if we take the figures he's posting it doesn't significantly alter the conclusion. According to his article it's possible, under an RCP8.5 scenario, that the Arctic might emit 380Gt CO2e, higher than the model estimates I was referring to initially estimate. But that's still a world where Arctic emissions are absolutely dwarfed by human emissions. RCP8.5 requires emitting truly staggering amounts of GHG and more than quadrupling pre-industrial CO2 levels. 380Gt CO2e is nothing compared to that. It's not even very much if we peak emissions at mid-century - which will lead to lower levels of Arctic emissions. It's enough radiative forcing to cause a fraction of a degree of warming, compared to multiple degrees of warming from anthropocentric emissions and their feedbacks as measured through ECS. It's probably true that I'm making some mistakes with the science, and perhaps even that's I'm doing too much to downplay it. But I'm certainly closer to the median view than the people I'm arguing against. Climate scientists are worried about feedbacks and tipping points, but they're much less worried about Arctic methane than they are about things like the break-up of the polar ice sheets or Amazon die-back. That's not to say we should ignore the problem - we should keep studying it and enhancing our understanding while keeping an eye out for unanticipated hazards - but going around and telling every that Arctic methane changes everything is irresponsible and unsupported.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Quote it To quote the IPCC: " For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect”—analogous to Venus--appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities." http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf So you say that what I posted there is a "sweeping statement" that is "categorically false". But when we go ask the IPCC, the foremost climate authority in the world, they say it's categorically true. Do you see the disconnect here? And saying the IPCC is just full of poo poo makes you look like a fool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:To quote the IPCC: The IPCC is not the only body doing climate science and calling their views the "consensus" is disingenuous at best. But I mean, this is the kind of danger you run in to trying to play pedant. Don't use words like consensus or, god forbid "all papers" if you're going to try to play "I'm technically correct"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
It's another ignore fight!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Not sure if this was discussed already, but the Lancet released the 2017 version of their report on the overall health impact of climate change. Here's an overview from the Atlantic:The Atlantic posted:The report examines dozens of statistics from around the planet and finds that the long-predicted effects of climate change have already become a reality in many places. Heat waves now last longer, reaching more people and broiling more territory, than they did in the 1980s and 1990s. In the United States, this spike in warmth is lengthening the allergy season, sometimes by weeks, and helping infectious diseases to spread. There's some criticism over the impact of how much productivity has already been impacted by recent temperature rise, but it shouldn't be controversial that outside work becomes harder when it's hotter. Practically speaking one of the few ways to get the western public (and rich people) to care about climate change is to point out that it's already impacting them and it can only get worse. Especially in the context of North America and the UK, the most conservative section of the population currently also tends to be the oldest aka the group most at risk of heat-wave related health issues. Also no-one likes allergy season.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The IPCC is not the only body doing climate science and calling their views the "consensus" is disingenuous at best. But I mean, this is the kind of danger you run in to trying to play pedant. I used the word "consensus" to refer to estimates of ECS. And I don't think I'm overplaying it too much there. There are a few notable dissenters, but they tend to estimate ECS is far lower than model-based methods would indicate: again, more in the range of 1.5-1.9, compared to 1.5-4.5 (or to give the prevailing view rather than the IPCC's, more like 2.2-4.0). And as far as "all papers" goes, that clearly referred to all the papers I'd read in context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I've seen people just outright state "we need to leave the third world to die; we'll be lucky to even save white people from extinction" here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:liar Accretionist posted:Our descendants will probably look back on developing the developing world as naive and suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I used the word "consensus" to refer to estimates of ECS. And I don't think I'm overplaying it too much there. There are a few notable dissenters, but they tend to estimate ECS is far lower than model-based methods would indicate: again, more in the range of 1.5-1.9, compared to 1.5-4.5 (or to give the prevailing view rather than the IPCC's, more like 2.2-4.0). And as far as "all papers" goes, that clearly referred to all the papers I'd read in context. Quite frankly, it's not a consensus. There's far too much uncertainty right now to start making definitive bounds and claims of consensus. I'm not even disagreeing with your point, I'm just saying you're using words incorrectly, strawmanning the arguments of others, and are far from "technically correct". Maybe some of the people here are talking about extreme scenarios, and you can say that you don't think they are likely, but when you start saying "the arctic can only emit this much co2 total"... I mean, we just don't know that number. There are estimates, but even those are given with the understanding that there's still a ton of uncertainty here. That doesn't say what you said though? Saying we won't have the power to help the "third world" in the future doesn't mean we should let them go extinct. Like, there's a lot of things that can be said about your posting, but that it's "Technically correct" is just not one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:48
|
|