|
Thug Lessons can you explain why you don't believe that a 99% extinction of all life on the planet is not a likely or possible worst case scenario of approaching 4.5C in our lifetime, by mechanism of acidification of the ocean to a degree at which phytoplankton can no longer survive and keep the Earth oxygenated enough to support not only humans but almost all animals that exist today. e: also I think the whole discussion of mass extinction is a waste of time anyways since nobody really thinks that global human civilization is gonna be around by the time my generation is old anyways, and such an extinction event wouldn't happen until we were all dead anyways in a couple hundred years. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Nov 3, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Nocturtle posted:it shouldn't be controversial that outside work becomes harder when it's hotter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted: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. Maybe "consensus" is too strong, but it's also not a view I've cherry-picked like the people who keep telling us methane is going to kill us all. It's very widely held, and the evidence behind it is the very same climate models we use to show climate change will happen at all. If you look at the empirical models, the ones that can show current and historical climate change, they show ECS being lower. It's a view that's open to revision, but we have really good reason to believe it. And I'm open to the view that Arctic emissions are going to contribute to warming over and above that predicted by ECS, but again, these seem to be on the order of a fraction of a degree - according to the sources you and R.I.M. have showed me! It's something to be worried about, but it's also consistently overplayed. As for "technically correct", that's something someone else said about me. I wouldn't actually claim everything I post is correct down to the last detail. Just that it's a better approximation than the people I'm arguing with. I'll try to improve how technically-correctly I state things and to make more room for uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Thug Lessons can you explain why you don't believe that a 99% extinction of all life on the planet is not a likely or possible worst case scenario of approaching 4.5C in our lifetime, by mechanism of acidification of the ocean to a degree at which phytoplankton can no longer survive and keep the Earth oxygenated enough to support not only humans but almost all animals that exist today. Well, I hadn't hear of this one before, so I went ahead and looked it up. It turns out that phytoplankton can (not necessarily will, but can) become extinct if ocean temperatures rise to 6C, not 4.5. But it's also important to note that ocean temperatures of 6C do not equate to 6C average warming. Warming will be distributed unevenly, and as you can see from page 12 of the IPCC's AR5 Summary for Policymakers, warming on land will exceed that of the oceans, so you'd actually have to have greater than 6C average warming to make phytoplankton extinction possible. So, even assuming 4.5C warming we don't even get close to having to worry about that in particular. That's not to say that 4.5C warming is good, or that the fact warming occurs more over land is good. It's actually quite bad, because cereal grain yields decrease by 10% for each degree of warming, and that's on top of expanded pest ranges, potential droughts, and heat waves that can wipe out an entire region's croplands for a season. I would be more worried about those things than doomsday scenarios where global warming means the end of oxygen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:liar No this comes up all the time, there's a particularly pernicious strain of neo-Malthusian that argues the Green revolution was a mistake for example: Marijuana Nihilist posted:humans are a blight on this planet hth There's lots of posters advancing lines like this. Preventing famine is a mistake, because we should just expect future famines. And it's not famines in the United States they think we should lean to live with
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley. It was a mistake to think that a nearly unbounded food supply would benefit the species without having a way to mitigate the strain those billions of people place on other shared resources. There is a difference between preventing famine and allowing for exponential population growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:nobody really thinks that global human civilization is gonna be around by the time my generation is old anyways Actually, I don't think that's the scientific consensus at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Mozi posted:There is a difference between preventing famine and allowing for exponential population growth. The ideal human world is a giant pile of bodies unable to move due to space constraints but somehow getting exactly enough nourishment to survive and reproduce.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Mozi posted:There is a difference between preventing famine and allowing for exponential population growth. In an ideal world where developed countries were happy to share their abundance with developing ones, sure. Otherwise, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
I finally get it. You have to be mentally ill to enjoy this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...climate-change/
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
The Guardian also has an article that shows what some coastal cities would look like due to sea level rise at +3C. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/03/miami-shanghai-3c-warming-cities-underwater Here's South Beach, Miami   Hell yeah. gently caress Florida!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Linked from that article, the Miami Forever Bond!Miami posted:The Miami Forever bond is a $400M general obligation bond that will pay for projects to protect our homes and property from sea level rise flooding and increase affordable housing. In terms of taking proactive steps to mitigate climate change, opposing this bond makes sense as: 1) It's throwing money away on an obviously doomed city 2) Florida delenda est $400 million dollars isn't that much in the big scheme of things but what better time to start the conversation about the need to depopulate coastal regions to minimize the economic damage of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Hmm, so does this put pressure on ol' Trump and pals to, you know, do something or at least pretend to do something, or will it be more like "Yeah, it's happening but since we are 65+ year old rich people we'll be dead before the poo poo hits the fan, so gently caress you!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:Hmm, so does this put pressure on ol' Trump and pals to, you know, do something or at least pretend to do something, or will it be more like "Yeah, it's happening but since we are 65+ year old rich people we'll be dead before the poo poo hits the fan, so gently caress you!" It'll be more like in the presser Shucks will say its fake news. enraged_camel posted:The Guardian also has an article that shows what some coastal cities would look like due to sea level rise at +3C. I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied - learn to swim. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Trump says Climate Change is a Manmade Disaster. ....SORRY!? Nail Rat posted:I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied - learn to swim. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Trump says Climate Change is a Manmade Disaster. so they tried to sack everyone who could potentially go against party line and still failed. lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Trump says Climate Change is a Manmade Disaster. Dude, I posted that literally four posts up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Dude, I posted that literally four posts up. Arglebargle III posted:I finally get it. Coincidence???
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 22:36
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Coincidence???
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
i'm not mentally ill
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, I don't think that's the scientific consensus at all. Only because scientists don't understand anything about politics. If any of them understood how human society worked then it definitely would be the consensus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Only because scientists don't understand anything about politics. If any of them understood how human society worked then it definitely would be the consensus. I don't think that's the consensus among political experts either. I'm sure you can someone who supports the argument, but the original claim was "nobody thinks human civilization will be around" which is both an uncommon opinion (even among experts of politics, climate or both) and also one not backed by fact or certainty. Ascribing certainty to such complex systems as to know for a fact we're all be dead in 50 years is twisting the facts at best to meet your conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
"Political experts" - you were the guy telling us last year ITT that Hillary was going to turn the country around on climate change. lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Most people who know poo poo about politics don't understand climate science in the least. The people who know about both things keep their mouths shut because they don't wanna get yelled at for being alarmist. Also I never said we'd all be dead, I just said global human civilization wouldn't still be around. I'm still working under the assumption that global human civilization will end before we manage to drive phytoplankton, and thus ourselves, to extinction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Most people who know poo poo about politics don't understand climate science in the least. The people who know about both things keep their mouths shut because they don't wanna get yelled at for being alarmist. Right and I don't think your premise that global human civilization will end within your lifetime has anywhere near the certainty you claim it does nor the support amongst people outside this thread. This idea that everyone secretly agrees with you but can't publish the truth because they'll get labeled as alarmist is a nice cop-out, I'll grant you that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
You say "everyone" as if there exists a sizeable portion of people who understand both climate science and real-world politics. Also don't forget that anyone who has kids is biologically unable to accept that the future is going to be bad, so you have to take them out of the sum total too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You say "everyone" as if there exists a sizeable portion of people who understand both climate science and real-world politics. See this is what I love about goons, the eagerness in which you declare you know more about the future of the climate than James Hansen. Why? Because he has kids of course! That makes him biologically incapable of accepting the One Truth you see!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
How would you make a scary climate change Halloween costume?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:How would you make a scary climate change Halloween costume? pick the local disaster from climate change most likely to affect your region and then play it the gently caress up, start screaming about the burns from the wildfires or drip muddy water as the youngest asks "wheres fluffy wheres fluffy" in increasing distraught tones. Right before the host freak out themselves, yell "trick or treat" then say you're going as the host's family 20 years in the future. Continue your block-walking pitch from here. That or a sexy refugee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
You know perfectly well how having kids changes a person. Do you seriously believe that any amount of evidence could convince someone with kids that their children are almost certainly going to die at a much younger age than them? Or that their children are likely to die in the same crisis that they will?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:How would you make a scary climate change Halloween costume? Staple this thread to your face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You say "everyone" as if there exists a sizeable portion of people who understand both climate science and real-world politics. I've seen goonier posts but none this smug. Legendary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I've seen goonier posts but none this smug. Legendary. Hey man I'm not the one who decided society should no longer have generalized post-secondary education like they did in ancient Greek times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
I always thought that one reason many climate change activists, researchers, and scientists are severely depressed and fight so hard is that some of them have children and know how horrifying the future we are locking ourselves into will be, and the knowledge that their kids will live worse lives and die earlier is devastating to them, especially since it could have been avoided. Thank god Chairmaster made me aware that in reality they are all biologically incapable of experiencing such thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You know perfectly well how having kids changes a person. Do you seriously believe that any amount of evidence could convince someone with kids that their children are almost certainly going to die at a much younger age than them? Or that their children are likely to die in the same crisis that they will? If all the doom and gloom was wrong, this would still be true. Even people who earnestly believe the world is heading towards the total collapse of civilization, or into vicious internecine wars, or global thermonuclear exchange, or what-have-you, will still somehow delude themselves into thinking their children might face some hardship but overall will be okay. They can't function otherwise. Normalcy bias is one hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I always thought that one reason many climate change activists, researchers, and scientists are severely depressed and fight so hard is that some of them have children and know how horrifying the future we are locking ourselves into will be, and the knowledge that their kids will live worse lives and die earlier is devastating to them, especially since it could have been avoided. Thank god Chairmaster made me aware that in reality they are all biologically incapable of experiencing such thoughts. The fact that any of them believe that should indicate to you how much worse the reality of the situation actually is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I finally get it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Well, I hadn't hear of this one before, so I went ahead and looked it up. It turns out that phytoplankton can (not necessarily will, but can) become extinct if ocean temperatures rise to 6C, not 4.5. But it's also important to note that ocean temperatures of 6C do not equate to 6C average warming. Warming will be distributed unevenly, and as you can see from page 12 of the IPCC's AR5 Summary for Policymakers, warming on land will exceed that of the oceans, so you'd actually have to have greater than 6C average warming to make phytoplankton extinction possible. So, even assuming 4.5C warming we don't even get close to having to worry about that in particular. Along with you know... ~60 years of farming left in the U.S. and less in a lot of other places, killing the oceans, exhausting or destroying our freshwater supplies, sea level rise forcing mass migration within a few decades at most, collapse of economically viable natural gas and oil, the staggering loss of flying insects, the continued extinction of animals a we murder them and their habitats, the looming degradation of the thermohaline circulation, the destruction of glaciers all across the world, the global decline in evaporation due to our extreme global dimming, the continuing population growth demanding more food and water, the coming conflict between Pakistan-India-China, a whole host of potential natural disasters that are due (Yellowstone, Cascadia, New Madrid, ...), continued butchering of fisheries, relentless destruction of forests, the annihilation of landscapes in pursuit of resources, the inability for democracies to respond to a few crises (never mind a so many all at once), and so on and so on... Straw and camels and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I always thought that one reason many climate change activists, researchers, and scientists are severely depressed and fight so hard is that some of them have children and know how horrifying the future we are locking ourselves into will be, and the knowledge that their kids will live worse lives and die earlier is devastating to them, especially since it could have been avoided. Thank god Chairmaster made me aware that in reality they are all biologically incapable of experiencing such thoughts. Most of them have kids so doesn't sound like they're too worried
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:40
|
|