|
The partisan divide over climate change is growing:Gallup posted:Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts Gallup applies an interesting classification to three different sets of respondents with broadly consistent poll responses: Concerned Believers,Cool Skeptics and Mixed Middle. Unsurprisingly people who believe climate change is real tend to be Democrats, younger or have a college degree:   It's bad that climate change as an issue has turned into a politically partisan issue. On the upside, the climate skeptic party is self-destructing. edit: VVVVVVVV Yes, those classifications are loaded by design. That was their point, they reflect acceptance of climate change varies widely across the population and is starkly correlated with political affiliation. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Mar 31, 2018 |
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Those classifications seem pretty loving loaded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The partisan divide over climate change is growing: on the other upside, even if they weren't self destructing the climate would eventually destroy them anyway 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 13:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
VideoGameVet posted:SoftBank partnering with the Saudis to build 200GW Solar Plant This is a PR stunt by an ambitious Saudi Crown Prince, not a real solar project.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
call to action posted:Are you retarded and/or don't know what RCP8.5 is? Because that's the emissions path we're on, without any of the (B)CCS assumed by that plan. That path is incompatible with organized civilization as we know it today (democracy, etc.) by 2100. 1.) You've walked back "the end of human civilization" to "fascism" and you should probably keep walking it back further. 2.) RCP8.5 is a worse-case scenario which assumes we do nothing to reduce emissions ever. No renewables, no nuclear, no energy efficiency, no EVs, nothing. Just exponentially expanding coal plants. And this has to continue forever, even as we reach mid-century and it's impossible to ignore the impacts of climate change. It's absolutely true that a +6C world looks horrific, but the good news is it's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Here’s a more accurate description of the RCP 8.5 scenario:quote:The scenario’s storyline describes a heterogeneous world with continuously increasing global population, resulting in a global population of 12 billion by 2100. Per capita income growth is slow and both internationally as well as regionally there is only little convergence between high and low income countries. Global GDP reaches around 250 trillion US2005$ in 2100. The slow economic development also implies little progress in terms of efficiency. Combined with the high population growth, this leads to high energy demands. Still, international trade in energy and technology is limited and overall rates of technological progress is modest. The inherent emphasis on greater self-sufficiency of individual countries and regions assumed in the scenario implies a reliance on domestically available resources. Resource availability is not necessarily a constraint but easily accessible conventional oil and gas become relatively scarce in comparison to more difficult to harvest unconventional fuels like tar sands or oil shale. Given the overall slow rate of technological improvements in low-carbon technologies, the future energy system moves toward coal-intensive technology choices with high GHG emissions. Environmental concerns in the A2 world are locally strong, especially in high and medium income regions. Food security is also a major concern, especially in low-income regions and agricultural productivity increases to feed a steadily increasing population.8 And as far as the specific source energy mixes: quote:Coal use in particular increases almost 10 fold by 2100 and there is a continued reliance on oil in the transportation sector. This fossil fuel continuance does not necessarily mean a complete lack of technological progress. In contrast to most other technologies, there are significant improvements in existing fossil alternatives as well as the penetration of a number of new advanced fossil technologies, thus increasing their efficiency and performance in the longer-term. In the electricity sector, this results in a shift towards clean coal technologies from current sub-critical coal capacities. In addition, with conventional oil becoming increasingly scarce, a shift toward more expensive unconventional oil sources takes place by 2050 and the subsequent increases in fossil fuel prices also leads an increased penetration of “synthetic” fuels like coal-based liquids. The increase in fossil fuel prices (about a doubling of both natural gas and oil prices by mid-century) triggers also some growth for nuclear electricity and hydro power, especially in the longer-term. Overall, however, fossil fuels continue to dominate the primary energy portfolio over the entire time horizon of the RCP8.5 scenario (Fig. 5). Source: Riahi, K., Rao, S., Krey, V. et al. Climatic Change (2011) 109: 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y While RCP8.5 was the worst case modeled by the IPCC it certainly is by no means the worst case we could take policywise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:2.) RCP8.5 is a worse-case scenario which assumes we do nothing to reduce emissions ever. No renewables, no nuclear, no energy efficiency, no EVs, nothing. Just exponentially expanding coal plants. And this has to continue forever, even as we reach mid-century and it's impossible to ignore the impacts of climate change. It's absolutely true that a +6C world looks horrific, but the good news is it's not going to happen. That's.... brazenly, wholly untrue, even if you only read summaries What the gently caress are you
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:2.) RCP8.5 is a worse-case scenario which assumes we do nothing to reduce emissions ever. No renewables, no nuclear, no energy efficiency, no EVs, nothing. Just exponentially expanding coal plants. And this has to continue forever, even as we reach mid-century and it's impossible to ignore the impacts of climate change. It's absolutely true that a +6C world looks horrific, but the good news is it's not going to happen. RCP 8.5 is doubling down on maintaining the status quo, with the wealthy nations collectively shrugging at the unfolding global humanitarian catastrophe in the lower latitudes. The first world way of life is non-negotiable, so no truly inconvenient measures are taken - instead it's all just gritting teeth through mitigation with mix of cynical "it's just what it is" and hope for the BIG BREAKTHROUGHS that will fix the planet sometime in the future, while the poor die in troves. Maintaining social order in such circumstances is only possible through increased fascism and corporatism; an "enlightened democracy" just doesn't work, so states either shift towards that or collapse into civil unrest. This is a probable scenario, that's why it's modeled. It doesn't pretend that we fail to altogether react to climate change, what it does is simulate humanity failing to make the revolutionary changes required to truly address it. We don't get miraculous carbon capture tech, we don't paradigm shift global transportation infrastructure to electric, we continue to treat GHG emissions as externalities and shift towards alternatives are dictated by the economies of scarcity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Let's take a breath and read a summary of 8.5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:That's.... brazenly, wholly untrue, even if you only read summaries He really, really wants the US (and other developed nations) to pour a colossal amount of resources into Africa so that it can be developed on par with other traditionally first world countries, i.e. HDI of 85 or greater. That's it. Think of the amount of mental gymnastics you'd need to go through to tell yourself that one of the areas that is about to get hosed hardest by climate change needs Hummer H3s and detached suburban homes and you've basically figured out Thug Lessons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
We're the civilizational equivalent of a splurge. No one should live like Americans. We'd need four or five Earths for everyone to live like Americans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
Lets not forget that the most recent IPCC report left out important feedback systems and ended up looking hilariously optimistic considering the data we've seen since. And even aside from that, a cursory glance at the RCP 8.5 scenario shows that Thug Lessons is either straight up lying or so incredibly far into denial that there's really no point in engaging with him. Next time he brings up more denialist nonsense you guys can really just link that post along with the RCP8.5 description. By the way, read through it regardless, and tell me how far off it seems from a realistic future to you. Apply everything you know about real-world politics and the direction of society when faced with even the slightest hardship, as well as the powers of the establishment to keep the status quo intact no matter how harmful and damaging it is. Maybe read up on the Albertan Tar Sands and people's attitudes toward moving away from fossil fuels, even in a situation where it's blatantly obvious that sticking with them is a waste of time and money and energy and does nobody any good other than a few rich guys taking advantage of everyone's stupidity and gullibility. And that's in a wealthy comfortable nation that doesn't even have Republicans in it! The idea that everyone should live like Americans is straight up farcical in real life. Without clean energy for everyone and a miraculous way to take carbon out of the atmosphere for free, it's baffling that people still think that this is realistic. We're still burning coal in 2018, for god's sake, and nobody's even interested in stopping because it'd be expensive. Because money matters more than humanity. e: poo poo, just take a look back in the thread and watch where so many people drop out of giving a poo poo about the climate when they're told that the biggest impacts they can have, by a HUGE margin, are to either stop driving, stop flying, stop eating meat, or stop having kids. These are the people that gave a poo poo in the first place, what do you think's gonna happen when you start asking normal people to make sacrifices and changes? ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The idea that everyone should live like Americans is straight up farcical in real life. Without clean energy for everyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here’s a more accurate description of the RCP 8.5 scenario: Potato Salad posted:Let's take a breath and read a summary of 8.5 None of this contradicts what I said. RCP8.5 includes no attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It includes exponentially expanding coal. There is no transition to EVs. Renewables and nuclear, at best, achieve modest gains in the last few decades of the 21st century. Maybe I phrased that poorly and people though I was saying RCP8.5 literally excluded renewables and nuclear, as though they didn't exist, but what I meant there is that it projects that they'll be insignificant as energy sources and people will just keep building coal plants. And that's exactly what RCP8.5 says. Just look at the graph. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 11:19
|
|
|
Papal Infallibility posted:He really, really wants the US (and other developed nations) to pour a colossal amount of resources into Africa so that it can be developed on par with other traditionally first world countries, i.e. HDI of 85 or greater. That's it. Yeah, that's absolutely true. I don't believe Africa, (and India, South and Southeast Asia, South America, etc.), should be kept in desperate poverty based on the mistaken belief that sin emits carbon. It's not about Hummers, (which aren't even made anymore; the company went out of business ten years ago), but about electricity, clean water and sanitation, access to basic appliances like washing machines, etc. And these countries are going to keep pursuing those goals whether you like it or not. If your climate program is based around keeping most of the world in perpetual poverty and misery it's dead on arrival.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
Developed nations should skip the wait and povertize themselves. Even without climate change, soil erosion, the draining of the aquifers, etc, we can never build enough nuke plants to get out of the energy trap and maintain growth, so gently caress it. The final score is "Industrial civilization is non-viable, thank you for playing Life."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
Notice how the idiot doesn't realize that pathway also has an insane amount of CCS and BCCS that will never ever happen Also GM, the maker of the Hummer, is still in business you denialist moron, and transitioning to EVs while remaining on carbon powered energy makes literally zero sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
To the earlier point, it has been gratifying to be banned in this thread, mocked, etc for being sadbrains and then having the science catch up with my pessimism. Predictably, the crowd saying how their kid will solve climate changes disappears at that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
call to action posted:Notice how the idiot doesn't realize that pathway also has an insane amount of CCS and BCCS that will never ever happen You sound pretty dumb and uninformed fyi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
call to action posted:Notice how the idiot doesn't realize that pathway also has an insane amount of CCS and BCCS that will never ever happen No it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Eh, I'm right in spirit and that's what matters
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
call to action posted:To the earlier point, it has been gratifying to be banned in this thread, mocked, etc for being sadbrains and then having the science catch up with my pessimism. Predictably, the crowd saying how their kid will solve climate changes disappears at that point. username/post Car Hater posted:Developed nations should skip the wait and povertize themselves. Even without climate change, soil erosion, the draining of the aquifers, etc, we can never build enough nuke plants to get out of the energy trap and maintain growth, so gently caress it. The final score is "Industrial civilization is non-viable, thank you for playing Life." nah we totally can it's just that it's not currently profitable enough or politically urgent enough to do it over the objections of rich people and idiots and rich idiots 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
New file for the drawer of "climate change predictions continually revised to be worse than expected":The Guardian posted:Hidden underwater melt-off in the Antarctic is doubling every 20 years and could soon overtake Greenland to become the biggest source of sea-level rise, according to the first complete underwater map of the world’s largest body of ice...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
I just want to live to see Miami, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Phoenix turn into abandoned ghost towns. Gonna be doing a lot of "I told you so"-ing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
How are u posted:I just want to live to see Miami, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Phoenix turn into abandoned ghost towns. Gonna be doing a lot of "I told you so"-ing. ... and hangings when it gets really bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Posting this paper if only for it's excellent name: Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs Environmental Research Letters, Volume 13, Number 4 posted:Abstract Here's a nice plot showing the inverse relationship between the required 2030-2050 CO2 emission reduction rate vs CO2 removal capacity for different 2030 annual emission rates: plot of CO2 reduction rate vs CDR:  A CDR of 5GtCO2/yr is roughly the minimum needed before blowing up the emission reduction rates compatible with average warming below 2C(1.5C). This minimum required 5GtCO2/year CDR value roughly agrees with this study(posted earlier) that calculated what's required to meet the Paris 1.5C average warming target for different socioeconomic pathways. Of course much larger values are required depending on how much we drag our feet:  Optimistically assuming future CDR costs are ~$100USD per MT of sequestered CO2 implies spending a minimum of $500 billion spent per year on CDR, with $1.5 trillion more realistic This is the minimum spending needed on CDR every year going forward to have any chance of keeping average warming below 2C. For comparison total global military annual spending is $1.8 trillion. If CDR can be framed as going to war against the sky maybe some of that spending can be redirected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
"War on Change," hits the lizard brain nicely. No change. No change for us. Everything stays the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:If CDR can be framed as going to war against the sky maybe some of that spending can be redirected. You know what the terrorists flew planes through to hit the World Trade Center on 9/11? The Sky. The Sky allowed 9/11 to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Guys, we've solved climate change, all we need to do is stop going to war with each other!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
How are u posted:I just want to live to see Miami, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Phoenix turn into abandoned ghost towns. Gonna be doing a lot of "I told you so"-ing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 10:26
|
|
|
hooman posted:Guys, we've solved climate change, all we need to do is stop going to war with each other! It's worse than that: stop going to war, be comfortable enough with each other to be more disarmed than we are today, and actually use the leftover money for anything other than regressive tax breaks. (that's a little silly; the US alone can take on a significant chunk of that annually as debt, so the sense of political urgency of our kids and their kids may be enough to hard launch global sequestration projects) Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Apr 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 10:39
|
|
|
That's my kind of poo poo. Now follow my logic and tell me where I'm wrong. Assuming an unbelievably and currently fantastical cost of $100MT for carbon sequestration, the cost of sequestering that carbon would require humanity to realize permanent world peace, something which doesn't seem too likely considering human history. The cost of not doing that is an increase in warming incompatible with organized global civilization living under any semblance of democracy or freedom. Is that right? If so, can someone hold my hand and walk me through the 'I should have kids and live a normal life' thinking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
call to action posted:Is that right? If so, can someone hold my hand and walk me through the 'I should have kids and live a normal life' thinking? Globally, we can kick the can like this for hundreds of years, far beyond the lifetime of your or your prospective children. But not forever. Bhodi fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Apr 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Hardship is not distributed equally. Everyone reading this will be fine because you live in a country that will ruthlessly exploit those countries who have less capability and shift the problems downward. It's happening today and will continue to happen. There will be more wars and more instability as people fight over scarcer resources but it's not the countries at the top that will suffer the loss. They will continue to take it from those who cannot prevent it, as they do today. What if I'm not one of the people that believe everyone in the first world is treated equally and will be equally protected from scarcity? I guess I just don't buy into the whole "a marketing director that lives in Manhattan will be as sheltered from the coming storm as someone who lives outside of Selma, Alabama in conditions the UN Special Rapporteur said are 'uncommon in the first world'" thing. I'm not sure I'm a Marxist, but completely dismissing the class aspect seems suspect considering how liable US elites have been to throw poors to the wolves over the last forever. Bhodi posted:Globally, we can kick the can like this for hundreds of years, far beyond the lifetime of your or your prospective children. But not forever. This, however, seems unsupported by the recent data. Unless your idea of kicking the can is living in a Nazi Mad Max state or something. call to action fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Apr 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
In order to achieve world peace you would first have to make sure that all groups of people on the planet have safe access to the necessities of life (food, sanitation, clean water, etc.) which would ultimately require global wealth inequality to decrease in a significant way. So to put away money to combat climate change, you would essentially require the destruction of capitalism as a whole, or at least require every first world country and major developing countries like China and Brazil to enact severe regulations on capitalism, which is never gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
call to action posted:What if I'm not one of the people that believe everyone in the first world is treated equally and will be equally separate from scarcity? I guess I just don't buy into the whole "a marketing director that lives in Manhattan will be as sheltered from the coming storm as someone who lives outside of Selma, Mississippi in conditions the UN Special Rapporteur said are 'uncommon in the first world'" thing. I'm not sure I'm a Marxist, but completely dismissing the class aspect seems suspect considering how liable US elites have been to throw poors to the wolves over the last forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
call to action posted:What if I'm not one of the people that believe everyone in the first world is treated equally and will be equally protected from scarcity? I guess I just don't buy into the whole "a marketing director that lives in Manhattan will be as sheltered from the coming storm as someone who lives outside of Selma, Alabama in conditions the UN Special Rapporteur said are 'uncommon in the first world'" thing. I'm not sure I'm a Marxist, but completely dismissing the class aspect seems suspect considering how liable US elites have been to throw poors to the wolves over the last forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
call to action posted:Is that right? If so, can someone hold my hand and walk me through the 'I should have kids and live a normal life' thinking? Do whatever the gently caress you want but for God's sake, don't loving have kids. They won't solve climate change, they will most likely put you in a home despite your protests, and will most likely have views you cannot hope to understand, all of this in addition to living in a hellscape. There is literally zero reason to have children. Zero.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Do whatever the gently caress you want but for God's sake, don't loving have kids. They won't solve climate change, they will most likely put you in a home despite your protests, and will most likely have views you cannot hope to understand, all of this in addition to living in a hellscape. There is literally zero reason to have children. Zero. I've seen a ton of people I went to college with who (at least at some point) were more leftist than me that are now all having kids, and I'm just thinking "loving really?" Surely most of these people have to know better but I guess the drive to pass on your genes is just too strong for most people to resist. loving hell I have yet to see any of my friends choose to adopt, except for an awesome lesbian couple who made the effort to adopt an at risk youth they were fostering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
To be honest I am seriously starting to believe most people have children because they are BORED. If you’re not a workaholic and don’t have a really intense hobby, at some point you can have all this time remaining. People avoid adopting because either they want something "theirs" or because it's too much of a long and expensive hassle. It’s hosed up.
AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 20:11
|
|