|
Thug Lessons posted:It was also pretty good at getting people to stop caring about the environment: I wonder why "activists" cant get countries to stop pumping oil 
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Global permanent austerity programs are probably not going to be a workable solution for any problem +1 Since the beginning of life on earth, natural selection has systematically taught organisms to exploit all available resources to their benefit. First to sustain life, then to reproduce, to improve health, for personal status, to wield social power, to deny the resources to competitors, and finally just to destroy what's left to deliberately create hardship (to make sure competitive selection continues. Satisfied, happy, and unchallenged populations would quickly become uncompetitive and go extinct). Conservation and moderation only become a selection pressure after a population has butted up against their habitat's carrying capacity a number of times. Cutting consumption is not even remotely possible until at least one population crash happens. Unless you think the myriad needs, wants, fears and insecurities of everyone on earth can be reconciled to get agreement on a comprehensive global austerity and population control plan. In a world where people still use incandescent lamps because nostalgia, and gerrymandering is seen as an insurmountable problem in many democracies. If you read this thread you know the world is screwed but won't do anything about it. Some might brag about what luxuries they go without, but that just means they didn't want those things in the first place (or they get some other perceived good from abstaining). Even the most zealous tree hugger would get cold feet as soon as one of their comforts was threatened. This doesn't necessarily mean that nothing matters or this is fine. Instead of an existential threat, climate change should be seen as an unprecedented opportunity for change. The job of practical and responsible eco-warriors is to advocate the softening of the population crash, and do what they can to ensure the consequences aren't too dire. Primarily this means the posters ITT need to be kept comfy, as well as the cute animals we like. Everything else is OUTSIDE, and can pass away. This might include cultivating domestic food and petrochemical production, or voting for the border wall (wherever you live, doesn't matter). Support random wars to destabilize the outside, so those people can demonstrate the consequences of climate change earlier and more clearly. Just think of how lean, efficient and happy the world can be, if all of us intelligent, right minded people work together to shepherd humanity through it's first population crash! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
You had me up until that last paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
The global financial crisis was actually pretty poo poo at turning down emissions. The Chinese response to a suddenly plummeting global consumer base for their industries, and thereby also needing to re-employ tens of millions of people, was to initiate a massive debt-financed infrastructure program and pour as much concrete in two years as the United States did in the entire 20th century. Capital needs somewhere to go and neoliberal austerity isn't going to do poo poo in a global economic system that fundamentally needs growth to survive. Environment versus economy is a false dichotomy, but hooray capitalism. Regardless, global socialism would probably require a disastrous collapse that's no better in the short-to-medium-term than disastrous global warming, so if the former ever happens it would likely be precipitated by the latter. The best things we can do are invent new technologies to allow capital to grow while reducing its environmental damage, and to put global limits on destruction. We're already doing this, or pretending to, and apparently badly failing, so: Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:They're specifically saying it is, though. The blue dots on this map are areas where thermal convection and reduced solubility and creating anoxia at depths 300m and below, while the red dots are areas where anoxia is at dangerous levels due to runoff. Sewage and waste runoff is an interesting problem because I think there are really strong positive and negative feedbacks modulating it over the 21st century. Hydrological models typically show a marked increase in events that would cause wastewater service failures for coastal residents. The numbers were typically that about 3x as many people are affected by wastewater service outages compared to the amount of people that are affected by flooding water levels. However, I also take the stance that sea level rise will start rapidly pushing us off of coastlines on a 2040 - 2060 time frame. So we have enhanced precipitation / storm surge causing wastewater failure while people will be significantly pushed inland from more hostile coastal conditions. Another part of this equation that I don't know the effects of altogether is what happens when coastal superfund sites start getting inundated. I also think China is heavily investing in better agricultural land use policies that will help regionally. In terms of danger, hypoxic zones are at least a local problem until the chemocline can reach the surface. The main extinction trigger happens when the atmospheric concentration of H2S starts going up significantly via surface convection. The first real global trigger would still likely be pH passing a critical point due to carbon load (something like http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906) Bringing the chemocline to the surface in a large area at least seems to be pretty hard to do. it didn't even happen in the PETM, but it did happen in the Permian-Triassic. However, I do wonder if we're more sensitive to localized H2S flux due to our already high concentrations of atmospheric methane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You had me up until that last paragraph. It's not a nice thought, but don't you think it will happen? (best case, assuming no extinction). In 2080, after catastrophic weather, famine and billions of deaths, the most brutal and insular first-worlders will be patting themselves on the back because they solved climate change. Until then, the bodies will pile up in ramps at the foot of the walls keeping the refugees out. Refugees from Syria were enough to put many nations into protectionist-mode. Imagine when it's 100 times worse. e. Defs tech gets better, and population growth plateaus with development. I guess the exact timeline or magnitude of the climate crisis can't be predicted any better than an upcoming earthquake. I merely suggest that an earthquake [i]must/i] precede subsequent building code improvements. Preen Dog fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
I think we've done a pretty good job inventing renewables technologies, actually. Their price has fallen exponentially with no end in sight, and their deployment has exceeded even the most optimistic projections (despite people like the IEA being extremely reluctant to project anything optimistic in that regard). The problem is we aren't having the same success with nuclear and negative emissions technologies, or even trying that hard to advance them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It was also pretty good at getting people to stop caring about the environment: hmm interesting, I wonder why
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
I'm surprised there are so few anoxic events off coastal China compared to Western Europe and North America. Does anyone have an explanation for the difference?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:It's not a nice thought, but don't you think it will happen? (best case, assuming no extinction). In 2080, after catastrophic weather, famine and billions of deaths, the most brutal and insular first-worlders will be patting themselves on the back because they solved climate change. Until then, the bodies will pile up in ramps at the foot of the walls keeping the refugees out. Sure, I think that's the path we're on right now, and I think the greens do a huge disservice by focusing on fantasies of collapse rather than the practical problem of feeding 11 billion people in a warming world. But I'm not going to go full-on accelerationist on it because there's still a lot of potential to avert most of that given proper mitigation and adaptation. I don't see any reason to view these problems as insoluble globally, though they may be for specific regions like the Sahel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I think we've done a pretty good job inventing renewables technologies, actually. Their price has fallen exponentially with no end in sight, and their deployment has exceeded even the most optimistic projections (despite people like the IEA being extremely reluctant to project anything optimistic in that regard). The problem is we aren't having the same success with nuclear and negative emissions technologies, or even trying that hard to advance them. Good thing unrestricted oil extraction in the arctic is now a thing 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:It's not a nice thought, but don't you think it will happen? (best case, assuming no extinction). In 2080, after catastrophic weather, famine and billions of deaths, the most brutal and insular first-worlders will be patting themselves on the back because they solved climate change. Until then, the bodies will pile up in ramps at the foot of the walls keeping the refugees out. is there any reputable model that predicts "billions" of deaths over sixty years?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:is there any reputable model that predicts "billions" of deaths over sixty years? Population isn't dynamically modeled. It's used as an input to set baselines for different representative concentration pathways which then supply GHG forcings that can be used for climate models. You can see the projections the IPCC draws from here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=99 So no, no models are predicting billions of deaths because they aren't modeling that in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
It's hard to imagine billions of people not dying under RCP8.5 because the land is warming something like 8-10C. Lots of agricultural land would simply become useless, at least for the crops we grow now, (hope you like sorghum). We are not going to do RCP8.5 though. Anyway you cannot project the human toll of climate change, you can just describe risks, bracket adaptation potential, etc. Even the part of climate science we are very confident in, climate modeling, does not make predictions, it makes projections based on emissions scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
I blame the cows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Of all the variables we could tweak, you choose consumption as the most critical factor influencing our climate destruction. If you say, "Animal Food Products consumption" ... it's pretty much up there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:If you say, "Animal Food Products consumption" ... it's pretty much up there. Muh cheeseburgers 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I blame the cows. Scott Adams..... good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Scott Adams..... good? nah 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
My boy Scott
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:is there any reputable model that predicts "billions" of deaths over sixty years? lmao if you think it'll take that long. cracking a bilz deaths is a piece of cake once JIT logistics for food supplies begin to break down due to a combination of soil depletion/temperature rise, ecosystem disruption, and port and transport networks getting hosed up due to acute and chronic sea level change. It won't necessarily manifest as like "Typhoon Jeb! swept through the SCS and drowned X country", it'll be a lack of calories and the resultant sociopolitical problems. 2030 is my target for poo poo generally hitting the fan if we don't start up some international agreements that dwarf Kyoto and Paris in scope. Gunshow Poophole fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:lmao if you think it'll take that long. Your prediction is baseless and frankly absurd. Soil erosion and sea level rise are not proceeding at anything resembling the pace you assume. What will you do in 2030 when the famines do not arrive? Will you follow in Paul Ehrlich's footsteps and push back the date, so the famines are ten years away forever? Or will you accept your methods are bankrupt and try to figure out what's actually happening?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
If you want to daydream about any global stressors before around 2050 or so, it's going to have to be through some sort of weather phenomenon, and our research doesn't have that much certainty around it. It's the second half of the century where things like sea level rise, river flow changes, high wet bulb temperature days, and soil depletion problems start becoming major factors at current rates. If you want to see some early bloodshed go look at how insurers are handling new coastal and wildland developments. Ones that don't adapt fast enough and keep insuring high risk housing will have capital events soon. Here's a great read about our development hubris which will stop sooner rather than later: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1988/09/26/los-angeles-against-the-mountains-i quote:In geology, it would be known as a debris flow. Debris flows amass in stream valleys and more or less resemble fresh concrete. They consist of water mixed with a good deal of solid material, most of which is above sand size. Some of it is Chevrolet size. Southern California will have great conditions for debris flow this week due to the large burn scars from wildfires that just occurred in tandem with the 2-6" of rain forecast throughout the region on Tuesday. https://twitter.com/NWSLosAngeles/status/950162234201858048
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Your prediction is baseless and frankly absurd. Soil erosion and sea level rise are not proceeding at anything resembling the pace you assume. What will you do in 2030 when the famines do not arrive? Will you follow in Paul Ehrlich's footsteps and push back the date, so the famines are ten years away forever? Or will you accept your methods are bankrupt and try to figure out what's actually happening? Imagine thinking that each country should consume all the resources in the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
...so I appreciate the occasional discussion of actual articles in here, but is there a newsfeed on anthropogenic climate change I can follow so I can avoid the endless pages upon pages of different people arguing that I should give up on everything forever but in different ways for different reasons? I get that part already, the minutiae of whether I should give up trying to understand things because all the models are broken or that I should give up trying to change my consumption habits because that has minimal effect or that I should give up on politics because I have no personal ability to destroy capitalism or that I should give up on discussion because no one argues in good faith or that I should give up on humanity because we all deserve to die, all of that seems kind of academic at this point. I get that what's coming is bad. I get that no one knows exactly how bad. That much has been made very abundantly clear, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:...so I appreciate the occasional discussion of actual articles in here, but is there a newsfeed on anthropogenic climate change I can follow so I can avoid the endless pages upon pages of different people arguing that I should give up on everything forever but in different ways for different reasons? I get that part already, the minutiae of whether I should give up trying to understand things because all the models are broken or that I should give up trying to change my consumption habits because that has minimal effect or that I should give up on politics because I have no personal ability to destroy capitalism or that I should give up on discussion because no one argues in good faith or that I should give up on humanity because we all deserve to die, all of that seems kind of academic at this point. /r/environment, probably. I'm sure there's some sort of RSS feed that will give you similar content but I don't use RSS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:...so I appreciate the occasional discussion of actual articles in here, but is there a newsfeed on anthropogenic climate change I can follow so I can avoid the endless pages upon pages of different people arguing that I should give up on everything forever but in different ways for different reasons? I get that part already, the minutiae of whether I should give up trying to understand things because all the models are broken or that I should give up trying to change my consumption habits because that has minimal effect or that I should give up on politics because I have no personal ability to destroy capitalism or that I should give up on discussion because no one argues in good faith or that I should give up on humanity because we all deserve to die, all of that seems kind of academic at this point. Here are a few that I can recommend off the top of my head, will add more as I remember them: Arctic Sea Ice Forums / Blog: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/board,3.0.html http://neven1.typepad.com/ American Geophysical Union: https://twitter.com/theAGU https://www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos Ari Jokimäki's Paper Feed: https://twitter.com/AGWobserver grist: http://grist.org/ robertscribbler blog: https://robertscribbler.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:...so I appreciate the occasional discussion of actual articles in here, but is there a newsfeed on anthropogenic climate change I can follow so I can avoid the endless pages upon pages of different people arguing that I should give up on everything forever but in different ways for different reasons? I get that part already, the minutiae of whether I should give up trying to understand things because all the models are broken or that I should give up trying to change my consumption habits because that has minimal effect or that I should give up on politics because I have no personal ability to destroy capitalism or that I should give up on discussion because no one argues in good faith or that I should give up on humanity because we all deserve to die, all of that seems kind of academic at this point. If you put Rime and a few shitposters who sporadically visit the thread (of which white sauce is the latest) on ignore, that pretty much prunes out the majority of the "it's hopeless" posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
As far as low-hanging fruits go in the world economy beef, lamb, consumer air-travel, the air-transport of goods and international tourism are probably what should be focused on for most of the world. They are almost exclusively unnecessary luxuries which generate enormous amounts of emissions which cannot be said for a lot of other forms of consumption. I kinda agree with Thug Lessons that the myopic focus on GDP is both as counter-productive as it is in-efficient. Creating an economy not built around growth would require world-wide economic reform in more extensive ways than the posters of this thread imagine. Taking away the things I listed above just means telling people to stop being entitled babies. We're going to have to tackle the economic side of things eventually (because low-hanging fruit is not decreasing emissions enough) but it shouldn't be the priority. The things I listed are electoral poison but they are things that could actually be accomplished, they don't even necessitate that all the world do it consecutively to be effective which cannot be said for a lot of other environmental reforms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:46
|
|
|
white sauce posted:I wonder why "activists" cant get countries to stop pumping oil Oil drilling operations are pretty complicated, it's not actually hard to stop a complicated machine from working. In most countries oil wells are not even guarded. Activist can't get countries to stop pumping oil because they haven't tried. Same goes for corporate headquarters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 09:37
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:As far as low-hanging fruits go in the world economy beef, lamb, consumer air-travel, the air-transport of goods and international tourism are probably what should be focused on for most of the world. They are almost exclusively unnecessary luxuries which generate enormous amounts of emissions which cannot be said for a lot of other forms of consumption. I kinda agree with Thug Lessons that the myopic focus on GDP is both as counter-productive as it is in-efficient. Creating an economy not built around growth would require world-wide economic reform in more extensive ways than the posters of this thread imagine. Taking away the things I listed above just means telling people to stop being entitled babies. We're going to have to tackle the economic side of things eventually (because low-hanging fruit is not decreasing emissions enough) but it shouldn't be the priority. The things I listed are electoral poison but they are things that could actually be accomplished, they don't even necessitate that all the world do it consecutively to be effective which cannot be said for a lot of other environmental reforms. How is air travel an unnecessary luxury?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How is air travel an unnecessary luxury? There are actually very few good reasons for 99% of humanity to travel cross-continent on more than an annual basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
Are you saying that my indifference to world travel is helping the planet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:06
|
|
|
You are basically a super hero (and me too).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:07
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Are you saying that my indifference to world travel is helping the planet? This man is a hero!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
I mean, I'd like to visit places outside of North America but my life's not going to be ruined if I never get more than the single passport stamp to Canada that I have. I'm also just unimpressed with people that found some way to get enough cash to go to a place for an amount of time, because any idiot can do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oil drilling operations are pretty complicated, it's not actually hard to stop a complicated machine from working. In most countries oil wells are not even guarded. Activist can't get countries to stop pumping oil because they haven't tried. This is incredibly wrong, btw
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
white sauce posted:This is incredibly wrong, btw He's suggesting the use of bombs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Are you saying that my indifference to world travel is helping the planet? Sure, but it will pale into insignificance if you ever have children
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Sure, but it will pale into insignificance if you ever have children What about my parents' children? Or yours?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 12:52
|
|