|
Orange Sunshine posted:There are forums and threads all over the internet full of space exploration fans who are preaching the necessity of colonizing other planets. These people are convinced that it will not be all that difficult to establish a permanent human presence on Mars, and that will we be able to terraform it in some fashion. I call this phenomenon "reddit brain".
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 06:12 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 03:45 |
|
Paradoxish posted:This is a global problem, not just a US one. That said, if what you're saying is actually true (and I don't believe it is) then we are completely hosed because we definitely do not have time to wait. It doesn't matter how optimistic or pessimistic you are, there is literally no valid, evidence based position where it's okay to sit around and wait for a couple of decades. We will blow through our carbon budget in that time and be forced to resign ourselves to increasingly horrific outcomes both in terms of long term consequences and the drastic mitigation strategies that we'll be forced to employ. Regarding the reactionary nature of the older generation wrt climate change, it's clearly not just a US phenomena. I showed US polling data as it was the easiest to find, but similar trends appear across other western democracies in political orientation and acceptance of climate change: Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions Support for emission reductions declines with age: Support for monetary transfers to developing countries while decarbonizing has the same trend: Obviously age is not the only or even most relevant factor, economic dependence on fossil fuel usage is also important. However older generations are generally more conservative than the rest of the population and less inclined to believe climate change is a major problem or caused by humans. The fact is we live in a democracy and progress on climate change mitigation has been stalled because a significant fraction of the population shares these beliefs and votes accordingly. My main point was that this bloc will become less significant over time for demographic reasons if nothing else. I'm not suggesting a "just wait for the older generation to die" strategy when pointing this out. It's clear we need to work to make traditional conservatism politically irrelevant as quickly as possible, both because of the ideological predisposition to reject the scientific consensus and also because any real solution at this point requires massive social spending. Regarding the time critical nature of the problem, yes it's unfortunate that we still haven't arrived at a political consensus. It should not still be a controversial issue but here we are. Climate change is tragic as the problem developed faster than our society could adapt politically and economically, despite it being a "slow" problem with most of the impact deferred several decades. In some sense it's already too late and we're already on a "horrific outcome" trajectory, as even if we immediately shape up and decarbonize ASAP we still require a massive negative emissions system to avert catastrophic warming. We just have to try our best to limit the damage to future generations. Paradoxish posted:Waiting for the olds to die is never, ever a useful approach for any problem. It doesn't work, and in this specific instance we won't even really be dealing with the same problem by then. I disagree, it's a great solution that works in large number of domains. I'd argue it's the main form of conflict resolution in academia. People's brains get less flexible as they age and they become less likely to adopt new beliefs, it happens. It's just going to take too long in the context of climate change. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Apr 24, 2018 |
# ? Apr 24, 2018 14:36 |
|
Nocturtle posted:People's brains get less flexible as they age and they become less likely to adopt new beliefs, it happens. You think people deny climate change because they lack brain flexibility? Seems a bit... bullshit imo
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 15:05 |
|
Orange Sunshine posted:There are forums and threads all over the internet full of space exploration fans who are preaching the necessity of colonizing other planets. These people are convinced that it will not be all that difficult to establish a permanent human presence on Mars, and that will we be able to terraform it in some fashion. There are some really really dumb people that think climate change will make the human race actually literally extinct but that is a pretty silly position and pretty much fantasy. The idea that we could live on a climately dead earth as if it was an airless planet like mars is probably correct, but it seems pretty obviously why we would prefer to not have it come to that.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 15:39 |
|
If you're a conservative, you're a hard charging, hard working person and you're not about to let nobody named 'children of the future' take what's YOURS in this dog eat dog world. If they were so important, they'd be rich.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 16:32 |
|
self unaware posted:You think people deny climate change because they lack brain flexibility? Seems a bit... bullshit imo That's because it is bullshit. People deny climate change for a variety of reasons, but it all amounts to "I don't want or need to pay to fix this". If someone in the older cohort has rejected the scientific consensus for over 30 years they're unlikely to be persuaded now.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 16:45 |
|
Nic Lewis and Judith Curry out with another climate sensitivity paper, and again estimate that ECS/TCS will be half of what climate models assume: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1 Would be great news!
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 16:53 |
|
One of the most worrisome predictions about climate change may be coming trueThe Washington Post posted:Two years ago, former NASA climate scientist James Hansen and a number of colleagues laid out a dire scenario in which
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 17:08 |
|
Arkane posted:Nic Lewis and Judith Curry out with another climate sensitivity paper, and again estimate that ECS/TCS will be half of what climate models assume: Lol holy poo poo
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 17:31 |
|
Who are these people?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 17:35 |
|
omh it's arkane lmao
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 17:47 |
|
goddamnit
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 19:49 |
|
Sweet mother of mercy, the dark one has returned, truly this is the end of days.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 19:55 |
|
call to action posted:Superstorms. Aw yea.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 20:06 |
|
Wow hahaha arkane is back. It's the only user in the whole forums i've ever put on ignore in like 10+ years
|
# ? Apr 24, 2018 20:37 |
|
Here's some straight–talking doom for you on this fine morning 'We're doomed': Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention quote:“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.”
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 09:09 |
|
TACD posted:Here's some straight–talking doom for you on this fine morning Tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma problem as they relate to climate change is likely to kill a majority of humans within the next couple hundred years, sure. Probably. At least I pretty much share his take on the situation. It's funny, because when the seldom occasion arises where I've tried to discuss these things with people the reaction is normally mixed between "wow climate change is kinda scary, someone should totally do something" and "who the hell are you to be preaching, I don't see you living in the forest like a hobo recycling pine cones so clearly you don't believe any of this and if you don't take extreme action I'll take none". I believe that mechanisms such as these are the ones that ultimately prevent us reacting to global warming fast enough and maintains the capitalist consumer society paradigm. That's a concrete, shared root cause there and it's a motherfucker of a problem to handle. Until someone finds a way to revolutionize our thinking, change the paradigm completely to adress those basic human psychological mechanics, there's no way we'll do anything significant in time for it to matter. It's not the flash heat but the slow boil that's going to cook this frog.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 09:36 |
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I believe that mechanisms such as these are the ones that ultimately prevent us reacting to global warming fast enough and maintains the capitalist consumer society paradigm. That's a concrete, shared root cause there and it's a motherfucker of a problem to handle. Until someone finds a way to revolutionize our thinking, change the paradigm completely to adress those basic human psychological mechanics, there's no way we'll do anything significant in time for it to matter. It's not the flash heat but the slow boil that's going to cook this frog. I got into an argument the other day about what the net-negatives of surveillance capitalism (Google, Facebook, etc) actually are and one of the points I kept hammering down is the immense amounts of resources these institutions basically waste. Hundreds of billions dollars and some of the brightest minds of several generations are all being pivoted to: Making people on the internet be influenced by ads to buy things they do not want. The most valuable companies of the 21th century all specialize in increasing consumption and wasting personal time and energy in the process of it. Free-market capitalism is so cancerous as a political ideology that it completes stutters the ability of most of our economy to act in its own long-term self-interest. We're all trapped in this bubble of bad 1980's macro-economics and from within it is completely impossible to vocalize how an economy addressing climate change would even look. For all our advancements we're still heading the path of every other old civilization to collapse from rapid climate change, we can't envision a world different from the one we live in. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Apr 26, 2018 |
# ? Apr 26, 2018 10:09 |
|
MiddleOne posted:I got into an argument the other day about what the net-negatives of surveillance capitalism (Google, Facebook, etc) actually are and one of the points I kept hammering down is the immense amounts of resources these institutions basically waste. Hundreds of billions dollars and some of the brightest minds of several generations are all being pivoted to: You are right, and that sentence there is extremely on the money. Within a consumption-oriented low regulation capitalist paradigm, there's no way to even begin to really tackle the problem. At the outset it would require actually and accurately pricing in "externalities" of doing business, to make businesses actually pay the cost of their exploitation. Any nation that did this while none others followed suit would cripple itself. The only way I can think of even approaching that issue would be massive and unified international government regulation. Essentially, a one world government completely immune to money influences and evershifting popular opinion would be what's required. That's not happening.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 10:38 |
|
TACD posted:Here's some straight–talking doom for you on this fine morning
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 14:13 |
El Grillo posted:I haven't followed any developments in the science for the past few years. Is he right to say that if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions right now, we're still screwed? That seems like a pretty bold claim given it seems we're pretty bad at predicting how the multifarious feedback loops, carbon sinks etc actually work? There's enough frontloaded co2 in the atmosphere, oceans, etc that even if we went zero emissions globally the moment I finish this post, we're still locked in to AT LEAST 2°C of warming globally. The ice caps will still melt (and probably distort oceanic currents), reefs will still die, marine ecosystems will still go haywire. Etc etc. Yeah we're bad at modelling but the way we're bad at it means that almost all of the predictions have underestimated the effects of climate change. We don't know enough to get a really accurate picture, just enough to know that we're hosed and wholely unprepared or unwilling to do anything about it.
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 14:32 |
|
El Grillo posted:I haven't followed any developments in the science for the past few years. Is he right to say that if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions right now, we're still screwed? That seems like a pretty bold claim given it seems we're pretty bad at predicting how the multifarious feedback loops, carbon sinks etc actually work? When someone is making statements like that it's a good clue they're not worth listening to on climate.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 14:38 |
|
Don't all the IPCC scenarios save for 8 include carbon capture as a given/necessity?
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 15:18 |
|
El Grillo posted:I haven't followed any developments in the science for the past few years. Is he right to say that if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions right now, we're still screwed? That seems like a pretty bold claim given it seems we're pretty bad at predicting how the multifarious feedback loops, carbon sinks etc actually work? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/ quote:The new study relied on four global climate models, which the researchers used to simulate the effects of removing all human-caused emissions of the major aerosols, including sulfate and carbon-based particles like soot. The resulting global warming, they concluded, would be anywhere from 0.5 to 1.1 degrees Celsius. Without negative emissions just stopping burning coal would actually accelerate warming in the short term
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 15:21 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:When someone is making statements like that it's a good clue they're not worth listening to on climate. But I do think he's right to point out, for example, that it's not healthy for climate researchers to treat 2100 as if it's the end of history, especially since a lack of long-term thinking is pretty foundational to this whole mess. He's right that individual contributions are meaningless, which is the source of much angst in this thread and elsewhere. And he's right that political leaders have never been honest about what needs to happen to seriously reduce emissions, either on a national or individual level. None of the entities large enough to really make a difference are actually doing anything. There's lots of individuals and groups moving in the right direction but the science has been pretty clear for a while that we need massive, paradigm–shifting changes in how things are run and that just isn't happening.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 15:32 |
|
TACD posted:Hillman is a social scientist so sure, let's not lean too much on a one-line, probably hyperbolic statement that's outside of his field of expertise. While we should certainly be looking at climate impacts beyond 2100, wrapping that in an apocalyptic and hopeless narrative negates any value that might come from such an investigation. You're right to point out that Hillman is not a climate scientist, but this reflects in far more than a "one-line hyperbolic statement". The article is riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations stemming from a lack of engagement with the literature. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/989410140913897472 https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/989425352857485313 Fundamentally, articles like this reflect more about the mindset of people writing them than they do about climate or the fate of civilization. It's not that different from Elon Musk saying in the future we're all going to live on Mars. Believe Hallman if you want, or Musk for that matter, but you'd be better off taking a skeptical eye.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 15:54 |
|
El Grillo posted:I haven't followed any developments in the science for the past few years. Is he right to say that if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions right now, we're still screwed? That seems like a pretty bold claim given it seems we're pretty bad at predicting how the multifarious feedback loops, carbon sinks etc actually work? It's something that hasn't really entered the popular consciousness yet. Staying below 1.5/2C warming requires rapid decarbonization AND the construction of a massive negative emissions system that charitably could cost the equivalent ~1% of global GDP (this fraction increases the longer decarbonization is delayed). This is the official plan, the negative emissions part is now mandatory and cutting emissions isn't enough anymore. That's what 30 years of doing nothing costs. edit: to be clear the 1.5C "carbon budget" is expended in roughly a decade, if it hasn't already been used up when accounting for aerosols + changes in land-use etc. It's basically gone. TACD posted:None of the entities large enough to really make a difference are actually doing anything. There's lots of individuals and groups moving in the right direction but the science has been pretty clear for a while that we need massive, paradigmshifting changes in how things are run and that just isn't happening. There was an excellent video lecture posted earlier in this thread, where a climate scientist talked about how the ocean's large thermal mass slows the global climate's response to changes in radiative forcing (it slows both warming and critically cooling). He also made the qualitative observation that large-scale social problems often takes at least ~40 years to resolve after the scientific consensus, which rings true. For example scientists figured out fairly early that leaded gasoline was a bad idea, but it still took decades before public sentiment turned decisively enough to override the economic interests that benefited from its use. Public sentiment is shifting wrt climate change, but it's happening too slowly and the scientific consensus really only solidified 30-40 years ago. The fact is that right now the majority of the public (in the US) is not worried about climate change, so while disappointing it's not a surprise that our political institutions aren't taking serious action. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 26, 2018 |
# ? Apr 26, 2018 16:03 |
|
TACD posted:But I do think he's right to point out, for example, that it's not healthy for climate researchers to treat 2100 as if it's the end of history, especially since a lack of long-term thinking is pretty foundational to this whole mess. I think anything past 2100 is so far future it's pretty hard to say anything about anything. Like there has rarely been a time we could predict what the social or scientific landscape looked like hundreds of years in advance. Like talking about human emissions in 2300 or something basically just means writing sci-fi fanfiction then saying "it's that, because I say so" with no real basis.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 16:08 |
|
El Grillo posted:I haven't followed any developments in the science for the past few years. Is he right to say that if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions right now, we're still screwed? That seems like a pretty bold claim given it seems we're pretty bad at predicting how the multifarious feedback loops, carbon sinks etc actually work? Nah, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280ppm, we're at 409 right now. The IPCC's "best guess" at the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the rise in temperature based upon a doubling of CO2, is that temperatures would increase by 1.5C-4.5C (and there's been papers in the few years since AR5 which have suggested the higher bounds of that range are very unlikely). As you can see from the ppm incraese, we're not even close to a doubling yet. So in the fantasy scenario where all emissions stopped right now, temperature would continue to rise very minimally and very slowly over the next few hundred years, but a "doomsday" would be extremely unlikely. TACD posted:Here's some straight–talking doom for you on this fine morning I think this sentence kind of encapsulates the ignorance of alarmists: "Hillman doubts that human ingenuity can find a fix and says there is no evidence that greenhouse gases can be safely buried." Not only would I say that is just completely wrongheaded thinking belied by the past few hundred years of our existence, but the example he gives is just plain factually incorrect. In fact, there's a project in Iceland which has shown what was once thought nigh impossible (sequestering carbon in solidified form) is doable, and might even become inexpensive. They already succeeded a couple years ago with the first iteration and are now onto the second: quote:The CarbFix2 pilot program can remove an estimated 50 metric tons of CO2 from the air each year, eliminating more CO2 than it produces. Climeworks’ engineers want the testing to show that similar projects could be used globally, though cost is among the issues—Climeworks estimates it costs $600 to extract one ton of CO2 from the air. http://www.powermag.com/test-of-carbon-capture-technology-underway-at-iceland-geothermal-plant/?mypower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarbFix And that's just one example of what one company has accomplished.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 16:30 |
|
Arkane posted:Not only would I say that is just completely wrongheaded thinking belied by the past few hundred years of our existence, but the example he gives is just plain factually incorrect. In fact, there's a project in Iceland which has shown what was once thought nigh impossible (sequestering carbon in solidified form) is doable, and might even become inexpensive. They already succeeded a couple years ago with the first iteration and are now onto the second: I don't know if there's any more value in optimism than there is in pessimism about carbon sequestration as a solution. Even if this company can get the cost down to $100 per metric ton, there's no economic incentive for industry to bother. Even if it's $1 per metric ton, that's $1 per metric ton of emission that industry is not going to pay for. Impose requirements in one place and high-emission industry will move to another. The problem being faced is Tragedy of the Commons, and it's much older than the Industrial Age carbon issue. We haven't discovered a solution for Tragedy of the Commons in any form. I think it's fair to say that we have ideas, but no solutions.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 17:08 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:When someone is making statements like that it's a good clue they're not worth listening to on climate. turn on your monitor Arkane posted:ignorance lol Why is this moron still talking about the will-never-scale CCS projects that have already been rightfully dismissed? Do you know what a metric ton is, and how many of them there are in a gigaton? How are you and "numbers"? call to action fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 26, 2018 |
# ? Apr 26, 2018 18:46 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:you'd be better off taking a skeptical eye. Thug Lessons posted:Several prominent climatologists released a book today presenting a model that suggests that warming can be limited to 2 degrees by keeping to the emissions limits set in the Paris Agreement and by producing at least 50% of the world's energy from zero-emissions sources by 2060. Thug Lessons posted:you'd be better off taking a skeptical eye.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2018 19:32 |
|
Arkane posted:Nah, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280ppm, we're at 409 right now. The IPCC's "best guess" at the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the rise in temperature based upon a doubling of CO2, is that temperatures would increase by 1.5C-4.5C (and there's been papers in the few years since AR5 which have suggested the higher bounds of that range are very unlikely). As you can see from the ppm incraese, we're not even close to a doubling yet. So in the fantasy scenario where all emissions stopped right now, temperature would continue to rise very minimally and very slowly over the next few hundred years, but a "doomsday" would be extremely unlikely. The point is that based on the way our society works, if it’s not profitable it’ll never loving happen, particularly in large enough quantities to make a difference. It’ll just stay as isolated research projects while the vast, overwhleming bulk of human action continues to churn out C02.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2018 02:04 |
|
Any recommended reading/watching on geoengineering?
|
# ? Apr 27, 2018 03:32 |
|
Serious_Cyclone posted:I don't know if there's any more value in optimism than there is in pessimism about carbon sequestration as a solution. Even if this company can get the cost down to $100 per metric ton, there's no economic incentive for industry to bother. Even if it's $1 per metric ton, that's $1 per metric ton of emission that industry is not going to pay for. Impose requirements in one place and high-emission industry will move to another. The problem being faced is Tragedy of the Commons, and it's much older than the Industrial Age carbon issue. We haven't discovered a solution for Tragedy of the Commons in any form. There are types of industrial facilities that the wealthy countries of the world generally agree should not be built. When they are built, they get bombs dropped on them. We can do this if we try.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2018 04:30 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:There are types of industrial facilities that the wealthy countries of the world generally agree should not be built. When they are built, they get bombs dropped on them. We can do this if we try. *in other countries, we let them keep building them if they already have them i'd like to see someone try to bomb the US for continuing the burn coal, or even building a doomsday weapon that could turn the entire earth into strawberry jam
|
# ? Apr 27, 2018 15:53 |
|
self unaware posted:*in other countries, we let them keep building them if they already have them Theoretically the nuclear weapon states could bind together and enforce a world-wide embargo on something like building new coal or natural gas plants but the problem as you observe is that while the UK, France and even China might go for it India, Pakistan, the US, Israel, North Korea and Russia won't have any of that poo poo. Enforcing climate adaption with military arms has all the same problems as achieving climate adaption through negotiation and treaties.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2018 16:05 |
|
I keep waiting for the Bangladeshi Special Forces to start blowing up train bridges in wyoming.
|
# ? Apr 27, 2018 21:54 |
|
Accretionist posted:Any recommended reading/watching on geoengineering? Big portions of the middle east and coastal nations in the next 20 years
|
# ? Apr 27, 2018 23:36 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 03:45 |
|
Accretionist posted:I've seen discussion about a blog from Argentinia's economic collapse. Did anyone ever find it? I have this blog I added to my favorites, probably from this thread. Not sure if its the same you are looking for.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2018 00:56 |