|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I mean you can kick off a feedback that dumps a fatal amount of hydrogen sulfide in the air along with acid rain, but it takes some effort. That still seems like "large number of deaths = extinction". I can't imagine a poison gas killing literally everyone on earth, especially if it didn't appear simultaneously everywhere. I mean, the human race bottlenecked down to <10,000 people before in the past and there is probably at least that many people breathing heavily filtered air right now. (probably not enough women but there is probably that many people just on submarines right now)
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
we do this every few pages and its so loving dumb. 100K rich people can survive in bunker-caves no matter how many nukes we set off or what temperature or acidity levels we hit. extinction is OFF THE TABLE shut the gently caress up about it already. the problem with global warming is not how do we survive, its how do we prevent tens of millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of refugees in places like bangladesh/west-bengal, whats left of the middle east, the sahel, central america etc. edit: short version "if x and y we could be extinct by 2100!" = gently caress you comic book manchild gtfo "check out this study or lecture about the affects of x on region y over the next 20 - 50 years" = thank you for your content StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Feb 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:we do this every few pages and its so loving dumb. 100K rich people can survive in bunker-caves no matter how many nukes we set off or what temperature or acidity levels we hit. I know it's hard to believe for some people, but we do not actually possess the technology for self-sustaining habitats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I know it's hard to believe for some people, but we do not actually possess the technology for self-sustaining habitats. Nor do we have the technology to reduce the earth to the point you need to live in a totally sealed self sustaining environment. Like we can poison water but we can’t like, blow up all the water
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Nor do we have the technology to reduce the earth to the point you need to live in a totally sealed self sustaining environment. Like we can poison water but we can’t like, blow up all the water No, but we possess the technology to destroy the infrastructure and technical expertise that'd otherwise allow us to mitigate and/or adapt to the collapsed ecosystem and extreme weather events of a 3°C world. Like, poo poo man, even the most hardcore survivalists can do gently caress all when they're suddenly hit by a temperature-driven biome shift, the foodchain collapses, no pollinating insects, and whatever they temporarily manage to cultivate on irradiated and increasingly eroded soil is producing 30% less macronutrients. Could pockets of humans survive more than a couple generations in these conditions? Maybe! But a certainty? Yeah, nope. Losing access to modern technology and skills are the big killer, because the Earth system would be changing far too fast for 'traditional' survival techniques to work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
The democrats could cause human extinction within 60 years by requiring everyone to be homosexual.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The democrats could cause human extinction within 60 years by requiring everyone to be homosexual. It would really impact birth rates if we allowed anime to spread to India and Latin America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
davebo posted:It would really impact birth rates if we allowed anime to spread to India and Latin America. Anime and condoms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Anime and condoms. green party platform startin to look good
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
As an anti-nihilist yet skeptic on most aspects of life, I don't think it does any good worrying about the things we have highly minute control over, such as climate change. Also, isn't the world finally going in the right direction regarding responding to it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Also, isn't the world finally going in the right direction regarding responding to it? We're currently on a path of massively overshooting the 2C goal so uuuuuuuuh EDIT: 
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
lol grouchio
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:As an anti-nihilist yet skeptic on most aspects of life, I don't think it does any good worrying about the things we have highly minute control over, such as climate change. Also, isn't the world finally going in the right direction regarding responding to it? No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
The Paris Climate accords, the environmental reforms in certain countries, increased awareness of climate change throughout the decade, the seeding of a real renewable energy industry - are not considered steps in the right direction?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
They're a step in the right direction kinda like if you're floating towards Niagara Falls and you stick your arm in the water
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:They're a step in the right direction kinda like if you're floating towards Niagara Falls and you stick your arm in the water
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:As an anti-nihilist yet skeptic on most aspects of life, I don't think it does any good worrying about the things we have highly minute control over, such as climate change. Also, isn't the world finally going in the right direction regarding responding to it? Humans move more sediment than all erosional processes, put more carbon in the air than any volcano ever has, and put more nitrogen in the air than all bacterial processes. But we only have "highly minute control" over climate change? Uhh.... I recommend you quit looking at this from a "how screwed or not are we" perspective and just think of it as a cool engineering problem about modeling, causality, and the effects of different response scenarios. It may help you get in the proper domain of reality instead of oscillating wildly while trying to deal with your biases about how you think the world should be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
I think anyone who isn't just really interested in the whole fluid/thermodynamics, chemistry, and paleontological components of our climate system is going to come up with really bad opinions about what is going to happen to our climate. Their bias will cloud their ability to find realistic outcomes if they are interested in climate systems for any other reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Sapient != sentient but nobody seems to get this regardless of what the position they're trying to support with lovely arguments is There are plenty of examples of both sapience and sentience in non-human animals. Corvids, cephalopods, cetaceans, elephantidae, other great apes, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_magpie quote:The Eurasian magpie is believed not only to be among the smartest of birds but among the most intelligent of all animals. Along with the jackdaw, the Eurasian magpie's nidopallium is approximately the same relative size as those in chimpanzees and humans, significantly larger than the gibbon's.[2] Like other corvids, such as ravens and crows, their total brain-to-body mass ratio is equal to most great apes and cetaceans.[41] A 2004 review suggests that the intelligence of the corvid family to which the Eurasian magpie belongs is equivalent to that of great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas) in terms of social cognition, causal reasoning, flexibility, imagination, and prospection.[42] I feel like you're using sapience with the circular meaning of "precisely like a human", to which you can only say, sure only humans are precisely like humans, but what are you trying to say by making that the definition? Unormal fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:And I am certain that further steps in the right direction will eventually find us a sturdy branch to pull ourselves ashore. Shore is a very long way off, and the falls are ever approaching: https://twitter.com/seaice_de/status/967679640402874369 There is open water deep in the Arctic circle in February. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Shore is a very long way off, and the falls are ever approaching: Once shear stress propagates to the Canadian archipelago and starts splitting it there, that should be the killing blow for multi-year ice. It will be interesting to see what happens when all of the CAA flows like the Fram and Nares instead of having that landfast boundary along North Greenland and the CAA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:And I am certain that further steps in the right direction will eventually find us a sturdy branch to pull ourselves ashore. Your faith is an inspiration to us all. Notorious R.I.M. posted:I think anyone who isn't just really interested in the whole fluid/thermodynamics, chemistry, and paleontological components of our climate system is going to come up with really bad opinions about what is going to happen to our climate. Their bias will cloud their ability to find realistic outcomes if they are interested in climate systems for any other reason. I'm very interested in the social and economic response aspect. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Once shear stress propagates to the Canadian archipelago and starts splitting it there, that should be the killing blow for multi-year ice. Well, we're still within the absolute worst-case projection of an ice-free arctic at some point during the summer until the summer of 2019...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I'm very interested in the social and economic response aspect. Same, but that stuff is an additional layer on top of the physical system, which comes first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Perhaps part of the issue is that people don't really understand how vastly different things are now. Here's some perspective, from the replies to that tweet: https://twitter.com/TenneyNaumer/status/967829950400290817
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
I love that we run cruise ships through the Arctic now, filled with boomers gawking ignorantly at the destruction they hath wrought. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Same, but that stuff is an additional layer on top of the physical system, which comes first. Hey, no, remember who's got the hand on the lever in all this. It's interconnected, since our action or inaction are what will ultimately determine our pathways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Well, we're still within the absolute worst-case projection of an ice-free arctic at some point during the summer until the summer of 2019... I think I can buy that. I'd say the next Niño does the ice in, and the effect lag from Niño to surface temps is something like 3 months iirc. Looks like we're going warm-neutral ENSO this year so 2019 is probably a reasonable bet for a Niño given recent history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:And I am certain that further steps in the right direction will eventually find us a sturdy branch to pull ourselves ashore. So, part of the problem with hoping for further steps is that we're actually running out of time very, very rapidly. The issue isn't that things are going to get wild and crazy by 2030, but rather that if we don't begin to take drastic measures in the next 5-10 years we'll have effectively locked ourselves into some of the more dangerous outcomes. We aren't really going in the right direction because the right direction would have been taking the steps that we're taking right now thirty or forty years ago. We're actually hilariously behind schedule, not accelerating towards a solution. To put it another way, there's too much focus on the curve itself and not on the area under the curve. We can go to absolutely zero net global emissions by 2040 and that can potentially still be too late to avoid catastrophic climate change. As long as we aren't pulling CO2 out of the air (something that there's no reason to expect us to be doing on a large enough scale anytime soon), every ton that we emit is a ton that we can't take back and that absolutely guarantees some amount of forcing. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Hey, no, remember who's got the hand on the lever in all this. It's interconnected, since our action or inaction are what will ultimately determine our pathways. yeah so then you bring in population modelers, economists, etc..., and come up with outcome scenarios, put them in our physical models, see what comes out, repeat and tune, etc.... Which is basically what the IPCC has been doing. Regardless though, the outcomes are all based on the physical models. I think anyone who says both "Aww shucks human ingenuity will find a way" and "We're all totally doomed" hasn't bothered to look at the physical processes in the first place, because that second part of running human outcome models provides outcomes across the entire spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
There’s no way we’re going to change our habits in the next 5-10 years. We’re going to have to see if geoengineering is possible after it’s too late.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:There’s no way we’re going to change our habits in the next 5-10 years. We’re going to have to see if geoengineering is possible after it’s too late. Geoengineering is what got us into this mess  I think it's a bit silly to act like geoengineering is some new thing, we'll just be trying a more varied array of solutions and hopefully doing it a bit less accidentally than we have been up until now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Well we know geoengineering in this direction is possible. Just like time travel forward is possible 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Although let's be real the ~geoengineering~ solutions are all going to be extremely stupid. Hey uhh... I hear this rock weathering thing is pretty cool. *weathers a few gigatonnes of pyrite; dies*
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Shore is a very long way off, and the falls are ever approaching: I know this is pretty off-topic, but I think that's a beautiful image, and initially mistook it for an album cover. It could totally be an album cover, guys!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:So, part of the problem with hoping for further steps is that we're actually running out of time very, very rapidly. The issue isn't that things are going to get wild and crazy by 2030, but rather that if we don't begin to take drastic measures in the next 5-10 years we'll have effectively locked ourselves into some of the more dangerous outcomes. We aren't really going in the right direction because the right direction would have been taking the steps that we're taking right now thirty or forty years ago. We're actually hilariously behind schedule, not accelerating towards a solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
as long as we put grouchio on mars, the heart and soul of our species will live on
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What I'm trying to ask is whether or not our further steps could save our species from near extinction and keep us under a 3-4 C rise by 2100? Or is the collapse of civilization everywhere a done deal already? The range of outcomes is a probability distribution based on the uncertainty in our physical modeling and the uncertainty in our adaptive responses. Binary thinking like "Collapse Y/N?" will get you nowhere. IMO if you don't want to focus on drilling into the nature of the pdf of outcomes, just focus on contributing to adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
It's crazy how much chaos 1°C is causing. Can't wait to see what 2 has in store for us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
On the subject of crazy geo-engineering schemes, I'm increasingly interested in proposals to turn off the sun Montgomery Burns style:PNAS 2006 November posted:Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1) ~$5 trillion to turn off global warming at the flip of a switch? That's only about double the cost of the Iraq wars at a time when the ocean is gearing up to strangle us with poison gas. I don't see what we're waiting for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:52
|
|
