|
Cingulate posted:Is it? I would expect this to be bimodally distributed - with a lot of people going "nothing to worry, Chinese hoax", and a bunch of people going "only mosquitoes will be alive by 2019", and little in between. Are we talking scientific opinion or people on the street? I mouth off every chance I get (outside of work) and the most common refrain I encounter is "It is a problem, but we'll solve it, now let me worry about more pressing issues." But hey we're already seeing the premature shutdown of the AMOC, wild temperature swings in the Arctic, and bizarre fucko weather all over the place. "Solving" it is going to involve serious changes, changes which imo obviously start with determining which technologies and consumption items can and cannot be supported in a carbon-neutral system.
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Car Hater posted:obviously start with determining which technologies and consumption items can and cannot be supported in a carbon-neutral system. I think the problem with starting with telling people they have too much and it needs to be taken away always leads into discussions on how that work that just sound like "It is a problem, but we'll solve it, now let me worry about more pressing issues." if you tell some guy you need to take away his car for the greater good he is going to need you to provide very specific details on how he is supposed to get to work and he's gonna see hand waving that maybe they might build trains or something in a place no one has offered to build any trains at all yet as just as hand wavey and dismissive as his request they just fix global warming.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is it? I would expect this to be bimodally distributed - with a lot of people going "nothing to worry, Chinese hoax", and a bunch of people going "only mosquitoes will be alive by 2019", and little in between. "Earth will be biologically dead; mosquitos 2020" is far outside academic mainstream. I'm also not seeing that here. The concerns that explode itt are usually related to the emergence of hints that we are approaching aggrivating tipping points like present North Atlantic drift slowdown. Resultant posting follows a few modes that are more about how existing known climate issues feel more personal in a darker world: 1) In an world with increasingly severe fascist reactionary movements, the little, early conflict aggrivating factors read gloomier -- even the 2.0 C by 2100 pill is harder to swallow if you're in any way focused on the advancement of the human condition. 2) Regarding tipping points, there is a focus on how little is known outside direct forcing factors, especially in an age where we're paying more attention to huge elements missed in pre-2014 paleo models like Greenland land ice mass. It's here that a lot of friction with Fugg Life is generated, for he speaks with cosmic authority on the boundary conditions, severity, existence, and even long term prognosis on the Catastrophe Of The Week in a manner that suggests he needs to be submitting papers like loving crazy, because the entire rest of the mass of humanity's climate change research apparatus is totally unaware of his sources. Motherfucker will sit here and casually put tipping points into ballpark proportion with annual anthro emissions figures and assure the thread that's enough to poo-poo the issue of great unknowns that have actual scientists curious at best and mortified in median for their undercounted contributions to our climate budget. I wonder what your personal finances look like, Thug, because you'd have Earth nickel and dime its way to totally blown emission budgets and tracks before the next decade is up. 3) Focus is naturally drawn to the tangibles of publicly visible / relatable landmarks. "drat it's one thing to see abstract heating data and quite another to watch NAC slowdown in an age where you can explore the Northwest Passage near winter."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
Full disclosure, the nickel and diming on unknown small secondary inflections isn't mine, that's stolen from an AR5 contributor I've worked for.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This extremely slight increase in my carbon footprint of taking 1-2 trips a year will be the carbon that does us in because it was used for something fun and life definining instead of being used for something dour like running a clothes dryer. Just how piggy do you live if 4 plane flights a year are minor? And just how sad is your life if petting cats is life defining to you?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
In the name of Jesus felching the sapphire throne, accept that OOCC will never see his upper class status and hosed up worldview for what it is and move on. His issues are with class and status, not really climate. You know this. Stop bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Are we talking scientific opinion or people on the street? I mouth off every chance I get (outside of work) and the most common refrain I encounter is "It is a problem, but we'll solve it, now let me worry about more pressing issues." Potato Salad posted:"Earth will be biologically dead; mosquitos 2020" Mosquitoes will only take over in 2021. Potato Salad posted:In an world with increasingly severe fascist reactionary movements Although I am forced to do this weird meta thing because I am incapable of actually understanding the real science, so I have to assign trust to people who communicate more climate scientific competence than I have.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:See, that's a bit fo a similar one - I feel pushed towards reading your points on climate change as somewhat unrealistically pessimistic because you're clearly unrealistically pessimistic on the political status quo. We are seeing a rise in public support for, and election successes of, incompetent right-wing reactionaries, but not fascism. They're a bit like fascists, and that's the trajectory And in a thread and community allowed to suffer the personal revelations on the intangibles of climate change becoming anchored to daily reality in passing landmarks and hints, that trajectory is enough for there to be a sentiment that poo poo is getting real. That's a grand share of  posts.On the pressimism you're perceiving -- I think it's more "drat this is cool but comically dark to actually watch" to "oh poo poo, wow ok I'm actually feeling fear for my future and well being." That sense of personal dead can be as small as concern over future career or family or living unknowns, which most everyone who has ever lived has felt. It doesn't necessarily state "I'm afraid because I think the biosphere will be skull powder and CO2 in 2100," its more mundane than that. Accordingly, the thread comes out of dormancy when we get a juicy Catastrophe Of The Week, reactions are largely  hail Satan because it's SA and that's how you express mild interest and surprise, and some people try to frame it against climate data on incredible (as in not credible) leaps that make scientists wish scientific journalism wasn't so loving hard.I'm phone posting and am aware of how the above flow juts about, my apologies in advance.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
I think one of the consequences of having TR in this thread has been normalization of one of the rhetorical tools in his poo-poo-everything Denialism 2.0 kit: that pretty much any negativity beyond a very light threshold is full arzy alarmism when the truth is that people are genuinely and personally worried about even the most mundane consequences of the 2.0 C world we're likely to enter. From that starting point, you can work and weave into highly improper conclusions on the long term effects of great unknowns like accelerating land ice melting, methane release, or ocean drift volume that come up in climate news. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:We are seeing a rise in public support for, and election successes of, incompetent right-wing reactionaries, but not fascism. This is a very US centric take on political status quo. There world is quite larger than the States. The rise of fascists as a 20, 30%, or higher electorate fraction in France, Hungary, Poland is something that probably requires a huge discussion on what thresholds you'd set on fuckos like FN voters being fascists. Edit 2: it's worth noting that conflict aggrivation in AR5 identifies threat multipliers and climate issues that exceed the capacity of peaceful response. No particular path down 21st century history like "Tromp/Farage for Jesusland 2032" is predicted. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:10 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Xarn posted:And just how sad is your life if petting cats is life defining to you? What a weird sentement, cats are great, look at this korean cat:  He's great. That I can do this is great. There is no solution for climate change that runs through individual choices. The only long term solutions are to find solutions. Even a 1% increase in plane engine efficiency does more than any possible amount of voluntary reduction in vacation time that any society would ever realistically make. Environmental problems need to be solved and trying to reframe them as issues with guilty individual citizens is extremely harmful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think one of the consequences of having TR in this thread has been normalization of one of the rhetorical tools in his poo-poo-everything Denialism 2.0 kit: that pretty much any negativity beyond a very light threshold is full arzy alarmism when the truth is that people are genuinely and personally worried about even the most mundane consequences of the 2.0 C world we're likely to enter. It's fine to be genuinely and personally worried, and there is obviously no shortage of scientists that are on that end of the spectrum. Anybody can recognize that humanity has taken dominion over a planet and is changing it in myriad ways, with unexpected results. However, because the issue has become interwoven with politics & economics, people on both ends of the debate greatly overstate their case to the point of departing from science in order to get the issue to dovetail perfectly with their existing worldview. Which is not to say that climate science is infallible or immalleable, but one doesn't get to make up their own reality and state that is where the science is. And lastly I would say that if you want to get people to engage with unknowns that could cause more warming than we expect, then perhaps don't dismiss unknowns that could cause less warming than we expect as being "denialist." The point of posting in here, I think, should be to challenge your own beliefs via argument and learning.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think one of the consequences of having TR in this thread has been normalization of one of the rhetorical tools in his poo-poo-everything Denialism 2.0 kit: that pretty much any negativity beyond a very light threshold is full arzy alarmism when the truth is that people are genuinely and personally worried about even the most mundane consequences of the 2.0 C world we're likely to enter. Welcome to the real world. You don't get to have a doomster treehouse where everyone in the thread will just jack each other off about civilizational collapse anymore. Other perspectives get to have their say. Get over it. In any case, if what I'm saying is incorrect or contradicts the scientific literature then anyone is welcome it cite sources showing that, but I suspect that won't be happening too often.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
How are u posted:It’s an unsettling mix of willfully blind optimism and condescension. "Willfully blind optimism"! It's basically a toned down RCP 6.0 scenario, which is probably going to be updated (in AR6) to be super close to what I posted. Well, not the Mars thing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
gently caress off, Arkane. I expanded the last post, read "6.0" and "toned down" in the same sentence, and donated $40 to the DSA. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:40 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What a weird sentement, cats are great, look at this korean cat: Tbh I'm somewhat annoyed that people are all over you for the cats thing and I wish they'd drop it, because as you point out, it's not a matter of individual choices. The solutions to our high carbon emissions is to switch to low-emissions and carbon negative technologies for electricity generation and transit. There is currently no such thing for long-distance air travel, and unless we have a true miracle in the battery field allowing for energy storage at equal or greater densities than liquid fuels, there never, ever will be. So assuming we are to continue on this Earth, society will have to be restructured to accommodate people's desires for travel with the need to curtail emissions. This will necessarily involve slower, more fuel efficient travel methods, and people should be fighting every day to force the transition. This argument is most applicable to air travel, then land, then sea. Alternatively, we rely on BECCS catching up to current emissions and then forever growing faster than emissions do.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Tbh I'm somewhat annoyed that people are all over you for the cats thing and I wish they'd drop it, because as you point out, it's not a matter of individual choices. People call him out for it mostly because he refuses to conceive of a future where long-distance air travel is restricted in any fashion. As in, a future where air travel becomes more expensive as its environmental impact is better factored into its cost is categorically incompatible with OOCC's worldview: it must get cheaper and easier forever, or human civilization has failed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:There is no solution for climate change that runs through individual choices. The only long term solutions are to find solutions. Even a 1% increase in plane engine efficiency does more than any possible amount of voluntary reduction in vacation time that any society would ever realistically make. Environmental problems need to be solved and trying to reframe them as issues with guilty individual citizens is extremely harmful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:There's... a lot of assumptions built into this. Like why in the world are you assuming a 1% plane engine efficiency is on the horizon but a 1% reduction in air travel isn't? I agree it's not realistic to just assume Earth will spontaneously reduce air travel by 1%, but it's also not realistic to just assume a universal 1% plane engine efficiency will spontaneously manifest. These are both things that require work to happen. Air travel is objectively terrible by any reasonable harm/benefit analysis, it's seems very plausible to me that, if we have any chance of solving this whatsoever, we can convince individuals not to fly on a scale that would have a similar effect to engine efficiency advances. Still relying on individual choices; ban airplanes system-wide (travel, military, shipping) and shunt everything to electric rail and nuclear ships to have a chance at achieving a sustainable industrial civilization. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Still relying on individual choices; ban airplanes system-wide (travel, military, shipping) and shunt everything to electric rail and nuclear ships in order to achieve a sustainable industrial civilization. This basically. If you can give me real solutions. If you can build me high speed rails that are even better than airplanes I'll take that. Or I'll take a shorter airplane flight to England then take the better cheaper high speed rail to a cat in Moscow or whatever. People don't like polluting, they like the things that are the products and services produced by them. If people can actually offer better products or services with less pollution people will take that. A solution needs to offer solutions, things like alternatives are solutions. If a better airplane can't be built the answer has to be better alternatives. People talk about better batteries or whatever as magic sci-fi fantasy wishes but they are downright grounded and realistic compared to people's wishes that everyone forever will just act more moral if we tell them to.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
You'd probably have better luck convincing governments to throw in for a global effort towards a sun shade, massive carbon capture (biological or mechanical), or whatever terraforming option than you would banning something like air travel.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This basically. If you can give me real solutions. If you can build me high speed rails that are even better than airplanes I'll take that. Or I'll take a shorter airplane flight to England then take the better cheaper high speed rail to a cat in Moscow or whatever. People don't like polluting, they like the things that are the products and services produced by them. If people can actually offer better products or services with less pollution people will take that. You have to accept that it will not be better though. It _will_ be slower, this is a fundamentally energy-driven process, and you're just not going to beat liquid hydrocarbons for point-to-point travel. Less pollution comes first, not improving the rate at which we get places. E; it will also be extremely rationed by virtue of capacity through choke points being lower, and materials being prioritized over tourists TheNakedFantastic posted:You'd probably have better luck convincing governments to throw in for a global effort towards a sun shade, massive carbon capture (biological or mechanical), or whatever terraforming option than you would banning something like air travel. Well, none of those will work or have anywhere near the effect people want, so maybe being realistic about what sentient species can do on carbon worlds is more sensible, and to hell with the government? Car Hater fucked around with this message at 18:31 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
"Sure the whole world is going to burn, but at least I won't be told I can't do anything I want"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
The problem isn't that he flies for frivolous bullshit, it's that he literally says that there's no point to a human civilization in which people are not able to do that.Nevvy Z posted:"Sure the whole world is going to burn, but at least I won't be told I can't do anything I want" It's unironically this.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:People call him out for it mostly because he refuses to conceive of a future where long-distance air travel is restricted in any fashion. air travel is already restricted to the point that people in this thread continuously accuse me of being wealthy because they are so aghast that I can afford to use airplanes twice a year. There is very little you could rise the price of travel and leave it as a thing that anyone but the ultra rich could access. I may be a dummy that travels for stupid reasons but the fact it's possible for me to do it also makes it possible for all the good and virtuous reasons people need to travel.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"Sure the whole world is going to burn, but at least I won't be told I can't do anything I want" pretty much convenience in every single part of modern life is underpinned by cheap borrowed energy from fossil fuels
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"Sure the whole world is going to burn, but at least I won't be told I can't do anything I want" 100%
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:
Who do you think will enforce the kind of massive economic changes needed to mitigate climate change if not the government?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"Sure the whole world is going to burn, but at least I won't be told I can't do anything I want" People won't even stop smoking or drinking or eating too much or excising too little or having risky sex if you lecture them that it will doom them to early death of their own actual self. The idea that you can lecture people into making moral choices to prioritize fully people 70+ years over their own wants and needs is pretty laughable and contrary to human nature. Like it's like freshmen stoner level insight to point out that people prioritize their current wants and needs over distant future drawbacks to their actions. If you can fix that you have fixed a lot more than global warming.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Who do you think will enforce the kind of massive economic changes needed to mitigate climate change if not the government? Panic is coming, friends 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:People won't even stop smoking they... they won't?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Gunshow Poophole posted:they... they won't? The number of worldwide smokers is not decreasing. http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/despite-declines-smoking-rates-number-smokers-and-cigarettes-rises Globally, smoking prevalence — the percentage of the population that smokes every day — has decreased, but the number of cigarette smokers worldwide has increased due to population growth, according to new research from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Gunshow Poophole posted:they... they won't? 1 billion people still smoke. I'm not saying you can never ever lecture an individual into having purer morals by threatening them with the effects, but it's pretty easy to observe that isn't really how people work large scale and that there are really really tight limits to how effective it is for changing behavior. Let alone when the effects are someone else's health, let alone when it's someone else's health a hundred years from now. People will take that stuff into account, but not more than they will the amount they already weight choices that effect their own death.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:People won't even stop smoking or drinking or eating too much or excising too little or having risky sex if you lecture them that it will doom them to early death of their own actual self. The idea that you can lecture people into making moral choices to prioritize fully people 70+ years over their own wants and needs is pretty laughable and contrary to human nature. I can sort of respect a stance of "Well this turns out to be literally impossible to solve, so we might as well enjoy what we have left", but "We should solve this, I just will only accept solutions involving magic new technology, also you saying that maybe we could convince people to care about the environment over their current wants and needs is naïve" is absurd. edit: Car Hater posted:Still relying on individual choices; ban airplanes system-wide (travel, military, shipping) and shunt everything to electric rail and nuclear ships to have a chance at achieving a sustainable industrial civilization.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:You have to accept that it will not be better though. Trains can be better than planes. The fastest train on earth is nearly 60% as fast as a plane as a train but carries tons of people, has far better seating and has tickets that cost like eight bucks. If planes remain the undisputed champion of speed that is fine, I'll only take a plane when I need to get somewhere fast, if the train goes the same place 50% as fast and 5% as expensive I'll just take the train. On the other than if trains are just worse than planes forever and ever in all ways always then I'll just take a plane, people can design better alternatives to things, and people will use them, but if they want to make drastically worse stuff then try to expect people to use them out of guilt then good luck, never gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean government is, in theory, receptive to what people want I appreciate that you realized just four words into your argument that it didn't have any relevance on the real world.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I appreciate that you realized just four words into your argument that it didn't have any relevance on the real world.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The number of worldwide smokers is not decreasing. i mean, i'm assuming you understand what i meant because this is like, primary school level misleading data usage why, I bet there are even more people dying than ever!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean if we're talking real world, the government is run by the rich and powerful who will happily let 95% of the world burn for their personal comfort, so why bother posting? Just lol if you even care about anything
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
twodot posted:I mean government is, in theory, receptive to what people want, so the only way we get to there is by convincing people that sort of policy is good. We won't convince people of poo poo, obviously, and no replacement infrastructure will get built when the Arctic ice is gone within a decade or two. People will be convinced by the second or third year of major crop failures.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:40
|
|