|
shrike82 posted:If there's a 10e-3 chance we'll "science" our way out of it, I'd say that there's a 10e-4 probability that we'll voluntarily decrease our consumption so Thug Life isn't wrong. Absolutely, there's no way 3 billion brown aren't going to increase their consumption in the future.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
There's always the possibility that overall consumption is decreased through death
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Limiting climate change is one of those tasks that appears impossible if you can only see your current position and how far it is to where you need to be. The distance from here to their just looks impossible to traverse. What good will one one step forward do when the distance is so great? Yet all process consists of many small steps, you just can’t tell you’re getting closer when you’ve got your eyes glued to the ground. Too many here talk like they’re ready to lie down and die. Well I’m still alive and that means I’m not giving up. Get your drat heads straight
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Salted_Pork posted:Absolutely, there's no way 3 billion brown aren't going to increase their consumption in the future. What occurred at the Paris Climate talks with India seems like a good approach. India planned on a huge increase in coal plants and wasn't going to sign the accords. A deal was arranged that enabled India to build solar plants and get financing at far lower rates than the typical World Bank ones. India signed the deal. Given Africa and India (and now Puerto Rico's) lack of a decent grid, decentralized solar (and wind in some cases) can be a solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Given Africa and India (and now Puerto Rico's) lack of a decent grid, decentralized solar (and wind in some cases) can be a solution. This is encouraging, but renewables more than anything need a grid due to their non-dispatchable nature. This is definitely a step in the right direction though, as neither Rome nor electrical grid can be built in a day, and any access to power can get people playing candy crush instead of loving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Salted_Pork posted:This is encouraging, but renewables more than anything need a grid due to their non-dispatchable nature. This is definitely a step in the right direction though, as neither Rome nor electrical grid can be built in a day, and any access to power can get people playing candy crush instead of loving. These are areas with lower use requirements. I'm thinking village sized installations with battery backups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:
Doesn't natural gas have the problem that the infrastructure used to shuttle it around is super leaky, so any net gains in reduced carbon emmissions due to the fact that it's cleaner than coal and oil or whatever are made up for and then some by the fact that non-negligable amounts of methane are being leaked into the areas surrounding the crumbling pipelines? edit: yeah I remember reading about it in this article last year https://www.economist.com/news/business/21702493-natural-gass-reputation-cleaner-fuel-coal-and-oil-risks-being-sullied-methane A Spherical Sponge fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
volcels, the last great hope for planet earth
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
A Spherical Sponge posted:Doesn't natural gas have the problem that the infrastructure used to shuttle it around is super leaky, so any net gains in reduced carbon emmissions due to the fact that it's cleaner than coal and oil or whatever are made up for and then some by the fact that non-negligable amounts of methane are being leaked into the areas surrounding the crumbling pipelines? Fracking as well releases a lot of methane at the wellhead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
SciShow made a video that should be in the op https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9EyFghIt5o
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
A Spherical Sponge posted:Doesn't natural gas have the problem that the infrastructure used to shuttle it around is super leaky, so any net gains in reduced carbon emmissions due to the fact that it's cleaner than coal and oil or whatever are made up for and then some by the fact that non-negligable amounts of methane are being leaked into the areas surrounding the crumbling pipelines? That's a good article but it doesn't match your summary. They're talking to Steve Hamburg from the EDF, and while he's one of the gloomiest people on methane emissions levels he's generally upbeat. He notes that even current levels of fugitive emissions aren't enough to match the overall emissions benefits and that, even if they were, they're still better in the long term because CH4 is a short-lived GHG. He's also positive about controlling the existing fugitive emissions, stating elsewhere that "This is a positive story... The data show that fixing this will be cost-effective for a relatively modest investment". It's a win-win scenario where fixing these problems will benefit both environmental campaigners by reducing GHG emissions and fossil fuel companies by increasing efficiency and profits. The same story also notes that even while natural gas extraction is increasing rapidly, overall leakage is actually being reduced. It's certainly a problem and we should be trying to fix it, but it's not something that undermines the massive benefits of natural gas in combating climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Here's a nice article from the Atlantic about the US Democrat party's strategy to address climate change (hint: there isn't one). If nothing else it's a nice summary of recent attempts to address climate change at the US federal level, although the main point of the article is the Democrats don't have a unified strategy and it's unclear they can create one. Particularly relevant:The Atlantic posted:Democrats face at least three major problems in trying to formulate a climate policy. Labor is not committed to addressing climate change as they (correctly) predict union jobs will inevitably be lost. There is justified skepticism that the federal govt can mitigate the economic impact via assistance or retraining. The Democrats likely need to sweep the House+Senate+Presidency to pass substantive climate change legislation in the face of unified Republican opposition. However any such proposed legislation will likely be deeply controversial even within the party, making such a sweep hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Sir I know that it will literally kill the planet if we don't pass this bill, but the rich man who donates millions to my campaign tells me that this bill must not pass. Repeat on down until there is a solid chunk of the nation who thinks climate change is fake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:SciShow made a video that should be in the op If there's anything else people think the OP needs, let me know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:Some nice bombs within the last month. CO2 concentrations accelerating, and now emissions are still increasing. noice What a bomb, that thing that has been happening forever hasn't stopped happening... call to action posted:b-b-but i was told that the chinese were making great strides in carbon emissionhahahahahha from the article:  
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's a good article but it doesn't match your summary. They're talking to Steve Hamburg from the EDF, and while he's one of the gloomiest people on methane emissions levels he's generally upbeat. He notes that even current levels of fugitive emissions aren't enough to match the overall emissions benefits and that, even if they were, they're still better in the long term because CH4 is a short-lived GHG. He's also positive about controlling the existing fugitive emissions, stating elsewhere that "This is a positive story... The data show that fixing this will be cost-effective for a relatively modest investment". It's a win-win scenario where fixing these problems will benefit both environmental campaigners by reducing GHG emissions and fossil fuel companies by increasing efficiency and profits. The same story also notes that even while natural gas extraction is increasing rapidly, overall leakage is actually being reduced. It's certainly a problem and we should be trying to fix it, but it's not something that undermines the massive benefits of natural gas in combating climate change. Oh okay. Well I'm happy to be proven wrong in my initial assessment I guess  Initially when I reread that article I was also thinking that the fact that because methane was a short lived GHG would mean that it isn't as dangerous overall as CO2 despite being a more powerful GHG overall (in the sense of trapping more heat over shorter timescales), but then I also remember reading (though I can't find the article) that there's a big problem with methane leakage in towns and cities because the infrastructure there that carries the gas hasn't been updated in decades and decades, and that it was causing adverse health outcomes in the usually poor neighbourhoods where it was an issue and was just generally dangerous for everybody. I think I was conflating the two issues in my head because the pipes in the urban/suburban areas are the pipes that are literally crumbling. But I suppose that's a separate issue to the methane leaks that happen in the middle of nowhere in the big pipelines maintained by the companies themselves that would be contributing the most to total fugitive emissions (at least I imagine so), and more to do with chronic underinvestment in civic infrastructure than what the article I linked was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
I really hope kids who grow up with climate change deniers just end up hating their parents. If their folks are still alive when things get nasty, I hope they have the courage to look them in the eye and say "gently caress you, you killed me because you couldn't give up hamburgers and gasoline. You're trash." Baby Boomers will be dead, but there are still young people out there who are having kids of their own right now who worship Tomi Lahren and other conservative pundits. I try to level headed when talking to these people but it's gotten to the point where a reasonable statement like "The environment is important because that's where food comes from, and a civil society requires agriculture" makes you a "libtard". We're all part of the problem, but they seem to enjoy making it worse out of spite. It's just spite for liberals and nothing more. This whole thing just makes me feel cynical. RobotDogPolice fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Nov 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
RobotDogPolice posted:I really hope kids who grow up with climate change deniers just end up hating their parents. If their folks are still alive when things get nasty, I hope they have the courage to look them in the eye and say "gently caress you, you killed me because you couldn't give up hamburgers and gasoline. You're trash." Baby Boomers will be dead, but there are still young people out there who are having kids of their own right now who worship Tomi Lahren and other conservative pundits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
RobotDogPolice posted:I try to level headed when talking to these people but it's gotten to the point where a reasonable statement like "The environment is important because that's where food comes from, and a civil society requires agriculture" makes you a "libtard". We're all part of the problem, but they seem to enjoy making it worse out of spite. It's just spite for liberals and nothing more. This whole thing just makes me feel cynical. If you take civilisation and conveniences of modern life for granted, then obviously anyone who claims your way of life is under threat is threatening your way of life and can be safely assumed to be insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 11:01
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/932945102355476480quote:The ocean floor gets deeper toward the center of this part of Antarctica, so each new iceberg that breaks away exposes taller and taller cliffs. Ice gets so heavy that these taller cliffs can’t support their own weight. Once they start to crumble, the destruction would be unstoppable. quote:“With marine ice cliff instability, sea-level rise for the next century is potentially much larger than we thought it might be five or 10 years ago,” Poinar says. quote:Around 3 million years ago, when global temperatures were about as warm as they’re expected to be later this century, oceans were dozens of feet higher than today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Miami send-off goonmeet? I've never been but I'd like to see it before it becomes Atlantis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Miami send-off goonmeet? I've never been but I'd like to see it before it becomes Atlantis. Stake Rick Scott to the beach at low tide?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
RobotDogPolice posted:I really hope kids who grow up with climate change deniers just end up hating their parents. If their folks are still alive when things get nasty, I hope they have the courage to look them in the eye and say "gently caress you, you killed me because you couldn't give up hamburgers and gasoline. You're trash." Baby Boomers will be dead, but there are still young people out there who are having kids of their own right now who worship Tomi Lahren and other conservative pundits. They won't. Even with the worst predictions, worst case scenario stuff, you know who'll survive? It's the rich fuckers in their mansions and gated communities and fortified settlements. They'll employ people like me to monitor their food and water, others to grow it, others to maintain it. It's the poor who always starve. But you know the link, the best link? It's the soldiers. You can't rely on us middle-class scientist types, we're weak...morally. Hell, you can buy most scientists and engineers off just by giving them a problem. If things DO become that catastrophic, there will be a whole strata of private security operators who are basically the army. But they'll be humans with regular roots in the normal community. And the rich fucker is going right down when his own bodyguard is the one to put the bullet in his head. Also, legally, it's not murder. Technically it's protecting your children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:They won't. Even with the worst predictions, worst case scenario stuff, you know who'll survive? It's the rich fuckers in their mansions and gated communities and fortified settlements. They'll employ people like me to monitor their food and water, others to grow it, others to maintain it. The security people will be robots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
You severely overestimate silicon valley.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:You severely overestimate silicon valley. Depends on how quickly this all happens, give it 50 years or so & I'm pretty sure we will have full on terminator style autonomous robotic soldiers. I've seen this driving around, admittedly there's a passenger in the driving seat but it gets around Oxford fine. http://ori.ox.ac.uk/application/robotcar/ I can only imagine what the military have done with this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
The robots don't have to be smart to kill everything that isn't rich and making a few mistakes is okay since it's only people being killed not money burning
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
I'm convinced the only reason we haven't had a spree of suicide-quadcopter assassinations is because we haven't had a sufficiently pissed off software engineer yet. Give it time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Would it really be that hard to strap a gun to a drone and give it a "Shoot anyone who isnt wearing an ID" program?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
RobotDogPolice posted:Would it really be that hard to strap a gun to a drone and give it a "Shoot anyone who isnt wearing an ID" program? yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Thanks for this one. The links don't work for me directly, though... even in other tweets talking about the article. Odd... so here's a direct link.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
They never said it'd have to work perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
RobotDogPolice posted:Would it really be that hard to strap a gun to a drone and give it a "Shoot anyone who isnt wearing an ID" program? If your criteria for a sensor is 'activate when thing not found' then you're going to have a lot of false positives. The rich are not that many nominally speaking so false positives would be a big deal. Optimally, you would just mark all the poor people pre-emptively through forced implants or whatever and then have your camera-guns open fire on anyone bearing the mark. Alternatively, you just mimic Frontex/South Korea and have your automatised detection system report to an officer which then has to make the call. Hell, South Korea already has autonomous guns in systems like this and I'm sure the EU is going to in 10 years as well with were we are heading when it comes to human rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Actually you just have the drones kill anyone not in the rich people bunkers
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Trainee PornStar posted:Depends on how quickly this all happens, give it 50 years or so & I'm pretty sure we will have full on terminator style autonomous robotic soldiers. People here tend to be massively ignorant when it comes to silicon valley . Like go read the beginning of the tech thread that started 2 years ago - people seriously thought (because they are clueless cynics) that self driving cars were to magic thing that were at least several decades, if not a half a century away  Meanwhile they've been tested on city roads for millions of miles and the only accidents have been the ones created by real drivers. People largely don't have a loving clue about how fast progress is being made on a lot of tech that is going to make the internet revolution look like blip on the radar. Nocturtle posted:Here's a nice article from the Atlantic about the US Democrat party's strategy to address climate change (hint: there isn't one). If nothing else it's a nice summary of recent attempts to address climate change at the US federal level, although the main point of the article is the Democrats don't have a unified strategy and it's unclear they can create one. Particularly relevant: This is why Hillary got laughed out of oil country, blabbering about retraining sounds good to some people's ears but they know better than most it never actually works in reality. Of course Trump had no solution either, so  VideoGameVet posted:What occurred at the Paris Climate talks with India seems like a good approach. The problem is it's impossible to decouple increases in standards of living from gg emissions because people loving love meat. It's less of an issue in India but in China thats going to mean a lot more beef consumption. Even in India I'm sure it will be a lot more lamb consumption or something similar that has significantly more footprint than say veggies or chicken. I mean theoretically you could turn everything into nuclear and solar and cut off most emissions from that but there's no real way to fix the food issue, even in theory at this point. And in reality it's also going to mean people consuming more things which even if produced with clean power will still lead to more greenhouse gases. So even if the west feels generous and finances massive clean energy projects in the developing world you still wont even come close to meeting the goals we need to reach to stave off the worst effects of gcc. The fact is there has never been a problem like gcc, which is why it's so strange when people here stamp their feet and are mystified at why it's not fixed yet. Most people here are too young to remember the ozone hole crisis of the 80s but it's a really good example to look at: We had a environmental crisis, and not only was the science clear but there was also a very clear prescription for how to cure it. And we did. But gcc is orders of magnitude more complicated of a problem. It's like compairing ww1 to nuclear war. We didn't have to worry and the developing world, since they by and large didn't use CFCs. We didn't have to completely reform the world economy overnight, because the alternatives to CFC were simple and already existed. And I could go on and on about the massive differences in scale and uncertainty of the solutions but the point should be obvious by now. We simply are not a predictive species( just look at this forums' election predictions!) We react to problems and use technology and tools to solve the problem. We didn't invent a wheel because we like round things, we needed to move poo poo around. If there is a solution to gcc, it was always going to be in that vein. There's nothing unique about people today. We simply just have a lot more of them and so we are stressing and stretching our resources exactly as people like Malthus predicted would happen. It's funny, you see people here mock technological solutions yet thats exactly why, for example, Malthus was wrong about mass starvation: technology massively increased food production. Sure, our kids may have us. Or they will laugh at us like we laugh at Malthus today. Or we will all be dead .
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:It's funny, you see people here mock technological solutions yet thats exactly why, for example, Malthus was wrong about mass starvation: technology massively increased food production. Sure, our kids may have us. Or they will laugh at us like we laugh at Malthus today. Or we will all be dead
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:For dinner? Well, there won't be anything else to munch on except rats, roaches and jellyfish, so why not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Soylent - Now Proudly Made of People
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
I don't get why people are so hung up on meat. every time someone digs into the numbers its somewhere between #4 and #10 on the priorities list depending on how you break stuff down. point being, we can all eat mcdonalds erry fukkin day if we don't own a car and power our vr-masturbatorium with wind & solar
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
tsa posted:People here tend to be massively ignorant when it comes to silicon valley . Like go read the beginning of the tech thread that started 2 years ago - people seriously thought (because they are clueless cynics) that self driving cars were to magic thing that were at least several decades, if not a half a century away Yeah. The “let’s eat meat” issue gets swept under the rug by governments and even environmental groups. Not eating animals or dairy does more than buying an EV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 06:23
|
|