|
It turns out the Great Filter is capitalism.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
Koirhor posted:IMO this is the answer to the Fermi paradox Sorry, it's actually that any species intelligent enough to travel between systems is also intelligent enough to understand that endless reproduction isn't desirable and that continuation of a life is a waste of time and energy. The rational thing to do is embrace entropy and turn yourself into a diffuse cloud of 2.725°K hydrogen gas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:In other fun news, even UAH says 2017 was #3 warmest in the satellite record... it wasn't even an El Niño year... The global report is still not out, but U.S. national report was released on Friday. As expected, it ain't pretty: "Based on preliminary analysis, the average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 54.6°F, 2.6°F above the 20th century average. This was the third warmest year since record keeping began in 1895, behind 2012 (55.3°F) and 2016 (54.9°F), and the 21st consecutive warmer-than-average year for the U.S. (1997 through 2017). The five warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S. have all occurred since 2006. Since 1895, the CONUS has observed an average temperature increase of 1.5°F per century. Nationally, the average minimum (low) temperature was 42.8°F, the fourth warmest on record, while the average maximum (high) temperature was 66.4°F, the fifth warmest on record. For the third consecutive year, every state across the contiguous U.S. and Alaska had an above-average annual temperature. Despite cold seasons in various regions throughout the year, above-average temperatures, often record breaking, during other parts of the year more than offset any seasonal cool conditions. Five states – Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina and South Carolina – had their warmest year on record. Thirty-two additional states, including Alaska, had annual temperatures that ranked among the 10 warmest on record." This is only a tiny portion of the report and I encourage you to skim through it at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Oooh hey, are we to the point where we can start calling individual weather phenomena climate change yet? Alaska just broke their January all-time high by 4F. https://twitter.com/AlaskaWx/status/952694320628252672
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
+20 in Alaska in January is pretty drat hosed up, can't slice that any other way tbqh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076079/fullquote:Here we show the climate impacts from removing present day anthropogenic aerosol emissions, and compare them to the impacts from moderate GHG dominated global warming. Removing aerosols induces a global mean surface heating of 0.5-1.1 °C, and precipitation increase of 2.0-4.6 %. Extreme weather indices also increase. We find a higher sensitivity of extreme events to aerosol reductions, per degree of surface warming, in particular over the major aerosol emission regions. Emphasis mine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076079/full Hmm... quote:To keep within 1.5 or 2 degrees of global warming, we need massive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, aerosol emissions will be strongly reduced. We show how cleaning up aerosols, predominantly sulfate, may add an additional half a degree of global warming, with impacts that strengthen those from greenhouse gas warming. This is a bit confusing. Are they saying that reducing aerosols (which are bad, right?) will contribute to global warming?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Hmm... Yes that is what they are saying. Different aerosols have different effects on the environment but the net impact of aerosol reduction is to increase temperatures by ~0.5-1.1C since they have a net cooling effect. One of the hare-brained geoengineering solutions we will inevitably try when poo poo gets really bad is to spray aerosols and pray. This will have unintended consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
I feel like it's almost inevitable at this point that wars will be fought over geoengineering schemes. Something like sulfate injection is guaranteed to negatively affect farmland in certain regions of the world and there's no way a country like China is going to sit back and say "yeah, we're totally happy to live with widespread famines so that NYC doesn't sink."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Assuming that the world maintains the ability to feed all the people on it (hahahaha), you'd think that the only way around wars like that would be to ditch the capitalism and exploitation and start working together in good faith internationally (hahahahahaha).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
'global dimming' in general is really hosed up imo. oh well
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Assuming that the world maintains the ability to feed all the people on it (hahahaha), Red text earned, I guess. Feeding people for the foreseeable future is and will remain a political problem. You can pick up a used copy of Limits to Growth (3rd Ed) pretty cheaply and should probably do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
tbh I don't actually think that global human civilization is gonna last long enough to make it to the point at which the population exceeds the amount of food that can physically be produced anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
0.5C - 1.1C was within range of what we expected so not really any need to get sadbrains about it. Good to see more research confirming the range though, and the precipitation change is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
the sooner we all die the better
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 09:43
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I feel like it's almost inevitable at this point that wars will be fought over geoengineering schemes. Something like sulfate injection is guaranteed to negatively affect farmland in certain regions of the world and there's no way a country like China is going to sit back and say "yeah, we're totally happy to live with widespread famines so that NYC doesn't sink." Sulfate injection is probably the most disruptive form of geoengineering, and really only gets evaluated because of its low cost. Most of the focus now is on negative emissions technologies. That said, we should probably still inject enough sulfates to compensate for the ones that are removed as coal plants are phased out as part of mitigation. It's not like there's any reason to believe deliberate geoengineering is somehow more dangerous than doing it accidentally - quite the opposite really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Right, but sulfate injection is a reasonable possibility because it's cheap and easy. Negative emissions technologies are expensive on the scales needed and have no economic justification as anything other than massive projects to combat climate change. Going hugely negative on global emissions is baked into all of the mainstream carbon budgets already in any case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's not like there's any reason to believe deliberate geoengineering is somehow more dangerous than doing it accidentally - quite the opposite really. It's way different optics when it's something everyone is doing because we're crap at judging externalities, than when loving Bangladesh announces it's going to intentionally start releasing gases into the atmosphere to alter the climate on a global scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
we;lp https://twitter.com/NPR/status/953717081551249409
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
There's a near-earth asteroid going by in the next couple weeks and it makes me wonder: If a medium sized one looks like it might hit, do you think would be better or worse off if we helped it out a little bit? A skyscraper sized rock would supposedly cause 8° of global cooling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:There's a near-earth asteroid going by in the next couple weeks and it makes me wonder: Kinda risky. Better hope it doesn't land in the Black Sea or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:There's a near-earth asteroid going by in the next couple weeks and it makes me wonder: Setting aside the devastation from the impact, the cooling rebound would gently caress us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Setting aside the devastation from the impact, the cooling rebound would gently caress us. Yes but would it gently caress us more or less than the status quo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
I’d be OK with a giant cloth shade in orbit that can block out some of the sun. Particularly if we can control it, like double the size and cut down on the rays on hot days. It was too sunny today, too sunny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 09:28
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:I’d be OK with a giant cloth shade in orbit that can block out some of the sun. Particularly if we can control it, like double the size and cut down on the rays on hot days. It was too sunny today, too sunny. respectfully, please go back to GBS, Mr President
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
The Global Climate Report - Annual 2017 is finally out. Excerpt: "The monthly global land and ocean temperatures at the start of 2017 were extremely warm, with the first four months each ranking as the second warmest for their respective months, behind the record year 2016. Of particular note, the global land and ocean temperature for the month of March 2017 was 1.03°C (1.9°F) above the 20th century average—this marked the first time the monthly temperature departure from average surpasses 1.0°C (1.8°F) in the absence of an El Niño episode in the tropical Pacific Ocean. After reaching its peak monthly temperature departure from average in March, temperatures began to slowly decrease in magnitude, ranging between +0.73°C to +0.88°C (+1.31°F to +1.58°F). The remainder months ranked among the four warmest on record, giving way to 2017 becoming the third warmest year in NOAA's 138-year record. The 2017 average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), behind the record year 2016 (+0.94°C / +1.69°F) and 2015 (+0.90°C / +1.62°F; second warmest year on record) both influenced by a strong El Niño episode. The year 2017 is also the warmest year without an El Niño present in the tropical Pacific Ocean." There are other things in the report as well, though it isn't as long as the U.S. report.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:38
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Global Climate Report - Annual 2017 is finally out. Excerpt: gently caress yeah
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Huh how did that happen? Everything was going so well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
I, for one, am fully engorged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Yes but would it gently caress us more or less than the status quo? I'd venture to say more but I don't want to be chided for unscientific speculation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Some interesting reading here on the effects of Climate Change and the subsequent proposed disaster management for the City of Cape Town, South Africa. The city is rapidly approach Day Zero (currently expected to be 21 April 2018): https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2018-01-22-from-the-inside-the-countdown-to-day-zero What is Day Zero? Dams supplying the city with water are at a crucial low. This crucial low means that dam storage will be at 13.5%. This is when the city will turn off most taps, leaving only vital services with access to water. On Day Zero, Cape Town residents will have to collect water at 200 collection sites or points of distribution in Cape Town. The City estimates that about 20 000 people will be able to collect water per site per day. EDIT: There have a been number of questions in the past in this thread related to how Climate Change would impact people on a day to day basis. The article I linked to provides *some* insight into what happens at a practical level in a scenario where water becomes a scarce resource in a metropolitan area. It's penned by the Western Cape Premier (Helen Zille) who's currently squabbling with the Cape Town mayor (Patricia de Lille) as well as her own party (the Democratic Alliance who runs the province) and the country's ruling party (the ANC). Petty politics aside, it really is worth a read even if you skip the paragraphs where she's playing the blame game. As others have pointed out though, politics will likely always be yet another hurdle we have to take into account when dealing with climate change scenarios and it's thus enlightening in that regard too. vanmartin fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 11:04
|
|
|
Isn't that (20k) like 5 percent of the population
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 11:33
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Isn't that (20k) like 5 percent of the population 20k per site. Presumably they'll have more than one site
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:20k per site. Presumably they'll have more than one site Correct. There's mention made of 200 collection sites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
Okay I miss read that. I was wondering how the gently caress that was going to work
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Okay I miss read that. I was wondering how the gently caress that was going to work As a resident of the ct area I am very much wondering how the gently caress this is going to work even with a better number slotted into this skeleton of a plan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:As a resident of the ct area I am very much wondering how the gently caress this is going to work even with a better number slotted into this skeleton of a plan. Ya'll need reverse-jesus to turn all your wine back into water. On a more serious note though, as a fellow South African I'm really worried for Cape Town residents. Things could turn nasty real quick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Hopefully, the increased water usage they're seeing is people stockpiling water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
People aren't stockpiling water 90 days ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 20:09
|
|