Acelerion posted:

I think I've posted this before but we are totally gonna do the aerosol/solar dimming thing and on the remote chance it works use the savings to burn more coal

Acelerion posted:

I think I've posted this before but we are totally gonna do the aerosol/solar dimming thing and on the remote chance it works use the savings to burn more coal

Acelerion posted:

I think I've posted this before but we are totally gonna do the aerosol/solar dimming thing and on the remote chance it works use the savings to burn more coal

Acelerion posted:

I think I've posted this before but we are totally gonna do the aerosol/solar dimming thing and on the remote chance it works use the savings to burn more coal

Acelerion posted:

I think I've posted this before but we are totally gonna do the aerosol/solar dimming thing and on the remote chance it works use the savings to burn more coal

quote:

The Sami, the only indigenous people left in Europe, have more than 100 different words for snow. From seaŋáš, a fluffy, grainy snow that moves easily, to tjaevi, flakes that stick together and are hard to dig, the names are based on its texture, depth, density, and the harsh conditions of the Arctic winter.

But the Sami of Sápmi, who are traditionally fishers, trappers, and reindeer herders, do not yet have a word for what they are seeing more often on the ground.

“This new snow has no name,” said Lars-Anders Kuhmunen, a reindeer herder from Kiruna, Sweden’s northernmost town, near the Norwegian border. “I don’t know what it is. It is like early tjaevi, which normally comes in March. The winters are warmer now and there is rain, making the ground icy. The snow on top is very bad snow and the reindeer can’t dig for their food.”

The Arctic is warming not twice as quickly as the rest of the world, as previously believed, but four times as fast, according to a paper published in Science last week. Sápmi, an area that stretches over parts of four countries—Sweden, Finland, Norway and Russia—and is hemmed by three seas, recorded its hottest temperature for more than a century in July this year, hitting 33.6 C (92.5 F) during a summer heatwave.

some of it posted:

Aslat Simma, 42, a herder and former chief of the Lainiovuoma tribe, said: “This is December. The temperature should be minus all the time. A normal winter has temperatures of -20 to -25C. Now the temperature can be zero or positive.”

Increasing rainfall in the autumn also leaves the lichen full of water, making it less nutritious for the deer, he said.

“We are living with nature and we are dependent on the weather and the reindeer for all we do. But the reindeer are using up all their energy trying to find grazing land and to dig. They are living on the edge of how an animal can adapt. When the changes in climate come so fast, they can’t adapt. They have already adapted so much.”

Henrik Blind, a member of a herding family from the town of Jokkmokk, said: “When you live so close to a creature, you see the world through their eyes. You see how hard it is to live in these conditions. Everything is upside down.

“Our livelihoods depend on a planet that is not on fire. We are an Arctic people and our culture is written in snow. But climate change means the snow will get less and less.

“We must realise we can’t overconsume our planet. This is urgent. We need to listen to all the indigenous people in the world who know how to live in harmony with the planet.”

quote:

In this view, we have created and prioritized an artificial world atop the real physical world, full of constructs that are malleable and in some senses arbitrary. Perhaps because the elements of this attention-dominating artificial world are of our own creation—agriculture, cities, political and legal systems, economies, industry, gadgets, entertainment, etc.—we acquire the illusion that we really are masters of the world and can design it to our collective wishes. The focus becomes on maneuvering through these complex constructs (political, legal, monetary, social) to achieve our goals. The canvas appears to be unconstrained, inspiring a certain enthusiasm for the “possible.” It is easy to overlook the fact that this artificial world has not stood the test of time, as the real physical world has by construction.

Meanwhile, the physical foundation is taken for granted like the air we breathe; or at least relegated to engineering “problems” to be solved. Our tendency to is throw physical considerations into the mix to swirl among all the other complexities: just another “pet issue” on an equal footing, and therefore as debatable, fungible, or perhaps ignorable as all the rest.

As an extreme example: whatever your passion, try making your case without any air in the room. Not only won’t the sound propagate, but you’ll be in a bad way for oxygen. Try maintaining your position for days or weeks without allowing any intake of water or food. The physical foundation is so obviously important as a prerequisite for anything else that it deserves its own (necessarily finite) canvas, within which everything else must operate in deference to the limitations/boundaries. Yet we take it for granted: treating something of paramount importance with little regard.

But is it Critical?
It makes sense that we do this, when hard limits have seemed remote or irrelevant this past century and more. The oxygen example above borders on ludicrous, since we are not in serious jeopardy of running out of air to breathe—space fantasies pushed aside. Food and water are less guaranteed. But generally speaking, ignoring physical limits is unwise when suddenly 8 billion people are scooping out the inheritance of Earth’s finite one-time resources as fast as humanly possible. We have not seen the full consequences yet, and can no longer take the foundation for granted, as we have already used up a shocking fraction of Earth’s offerings in the blink of an eye on timescales of evolution or even of civilization. We are chewing on the power cord to our life support machine, as if it’s just another fun choice on the menu. It’s the worst choice we could make, as exciting as Amazon deliveries might be.

To most, it seems that physical resources have always been available in sufficient quantity—notwithstanding costs that act to curb our appetites, operating as a crude and imperfect signal that quantities must be limited in some manner. The problem is typically conceived to be one of efficient organization and distribution, so that physical availability takes a back seat to human-controlled factors.

Perhaps a useful way to drive the point home is to pause and look around you. Most eyes will land on a lot of physical “stuff.” Or think about the stream of delivery trucks, unloaded car trunks, and curbside waste as a marker of material throughput in most households. Where does it all come from? Is the source limitless? Could you gather the resources that make your life possible on your own little patch of land: metals, plastics, wood, energy resources? Who, in fact, can? Or can you at least offer something of value that can be traded for things you don’t happen to have on your property? Can the things you need even be sourced in your local region? The stuff we rely upon is not exactly easy to acquire, and it gets harder as the prime resources are fully exploited/depleted on this ever-smaller globe.

Dismissing Limits
Ignoring physical limitations allows human exceptionalism to take center stage, subsuming physical concerns under the “engineering” category of human mastery. And many engineers are perfectly happy to receive well-defined “kit” to puzzle out, creating the temporary illusion that cleverness triumphs over natural limits.

Space fantasies fall into this category: thought to be just a matter of the political stars aligning and some advances in engineering. Never mind the question of whether Earth even has the resources to launch a large human footprint in space, or the staggering paucity of resources in that hostile environment. Those considerations were not part of the kit, and take away from the fun.


In this context, I am reminded of the physical basis for American dominance in the latter half of the 20th century. A plot of the fraction of global energy resources consumed by the U.S. during this period is eye-opening. Having only 6% of the world’s population in 1950, the U.S. used over 70% of oil, and over 80% of natural gas. This qualified the U.S. as a literal superpower, following the physics definition of power as rate of energy use. It wasn’t just energy. The North American frontier was laden with physical resources primed for exploitation. A common sentiment is that America should return to those glory days (not great for all, I note)—as if it’s a matter of attitudes or ideologies. No! It was a reflection of physical dominance. We’re not going back there, no matter how we cast our votes.

Our tendency to ignore the value of physical resources in relation to our artificial pursuits is also seen in the way we treat resources as essentially free in our price structures. The cost is dominated by the extraction effort (a human activity), land rights (another artificial construct), and maybe a little profit for those who have the means to secure and perform the extraction/exploitation. No one pays into a global coffer for the extracted oil, or the cut-down tree. The actual thing that’s valuable is plucked for free—uncompensated. No wonder we fail to properly value those resources as special. Our woefully inadequate construct of money is not up to the task of protecting our life support machine.
...
Physical limits should be the start of every discussion. Every policy, every philosophical argument, every religious choice, every economic decision should first consider the immutable impact on the physical world: the real and non-negotiable world. Will the proposal have a net negative or a net positive effect on ecosystems (neutral also okay)? Only after planetary limits are respected should considerations in our artificially constructed world be applied. Otherwise we write the prescription for failure.
...
It turns out that what’s good for humans (in the short term) is not necessarily good for nature. In our current—utterly unsustainable—mode, choices that are thought to be good for humans are usually decidedly terrible choices for the planet and therefore ultimately bad for us, too. Take care of the real world first, and then you can have dessert.

The overall point is that the world in which we operate is divided into the physical and the philosophical. One is real and not the least arbitrary or negotiable in its rule set. The other is imagined to enjoy great freedom from constraint, encouraging us to paint anything that pleases. Lumping them together in a confusing mash of relativism is bound to result in ultimate failure, because it’s just wrong. The canvas is not unbounded, so adjust your painting ambitions accordingly, before applying the first stroke.

500 good dogs posted:

How does dropping nukes on Ukraine affect the biosphere? Just asking because Ukraine claims Russia is planning a nuclear attack (lol) https://www.rt.com/russia/544001-ukraine-afraid-nuclear-attack/

edit: I assume that a single nuke doesn't materially affect the atmosphere, but the resulting radiation would presumably contribute to something like ocean species dying or something right?

Homeless Friend posted:

its only a closed system until we start mining asteroids. imagine carving one into a huge plane in order to fly it down to earth. makes u think

500 good dogs posted:

How does dropping nukes on Ukraine affect the biosphere? Just asking because Ukraine claims Russia is planning a nuclear attack (lol) https://www.rt.com/russia/544001-ukraine-afraid-nuclear-attack/

edit: I assume that a single nuke doesn't materially affect the atmosphere, but the resulting radiation would presumably contribute to something like ocean species dying or something right?

SKULL.GIF posted:

can't we just nuke yellowstone instead

500 good dogs posted:

How does dropping nukes on Ukraine affect the biosphere? Just asking because Ukraine claims Russia is planning a nuclear attack (lol) https://www.rt.com/russia/544001-ukraine-afraid-nuclear-attack/

edit: I assume that a single nuke doesn't materially affect the atmosphere, but the resulting radiation would presumably contribute to something like ocean species dying or something right?

500 good dogs posted:

How does dropping nukes on Ukraine affect the biosphere? Just asking because Ukraine claims Russia is planning a nuclear attack (lol) https://www.rt.com/russia/544001-ukraine-afraid-nuclear-attack/

edit: I assume that a single nuke doesn't materially affect the atmosphere, but the resulting radiation would presumably contribute to something like ocean species dying or something right?

Oolb posted:

We Live In a Society, I say. And you laugh. But nothing truer has been spoken... (i forgot what else i was gonna say)

Hubbert posted:

Hubbert posted:

SKULL.GIF posted:

https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1473814664043802629

quote:

According to a new study published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, there have been decreases in all modes of partnered sex from 2009 to 2019 for both adults and adolescents. Further, solo masturbation has been decreasing among adolescents.

Various studies from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Japan have revealed a declining trend of partnered sexual activity over time. This trend has alarmed many researchers, given it may be a reflection of some unpleasant truths, including the influence of environmental factors on hormone levels, the effect of social media platforms on people, and changes to human connection and intimacy.

Some interpretations suggest these shifts may be a product of changes in sexual repertoire – as in, increased quality of sex in the presence of decreased frequency. Thus, this work considers the diversity of people’s sexual behaviors throughout the course of a year, and spans a decade, assessing changes in specific sexual behaviors over time.

Debby Herbenick and colleagues used data from the 2009 (4,155 participants) and 2018 (4,547 participants) waves of the United States’ National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, a nationally representative online survey. Participants included both adolescents (ages 14-17) and adults (ages 18-49). Initiated in 2009, the survey had six subsequent data collection waves between 2012 and 2018.

Participants provided demographic information, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, income, education, and employment status. They responded to various questions regarding frequency of penile-vaginal intercourse (response options ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘daily’), and sexual repertoire (such as, recency of solo masturbation, partnered masturbation, oral sex; response options ranging from ‘never’ to ‘in the past 30 days’).

The researchers found that adult participants in the 2018 wave were more likely to report no penile-vaginal intercourse in the prior year (28% in 2018 vs. 24% in 2009); this was similar for adolescents (89% in 2018 vs. 79% in 2009). Further, for both adults and adolescents, all modes of partnered sex showed decreases. This was also the case for solo masturbation among adolescents.

Using detailed measures of sexual behaviors allowed the researchers to examine whether the declines in coital frequency may be explained by increases in non-coital behaviors; the data appears to suggest this explanation does not account for the observed trend.

These findings are consistent with studies from numerous countries documenting declines in sexual frequency.

Xaris posted:

Homeless Friend posted:

proud to be part of the greatest balls generation

Xaris posted:

Tim Murphy is one of those peak oil blogger types who kinda vanished for awhile but has done some soul searching. he has a bit overly academia-steeped brain but his piece about climate change being sort of a distraction and that it's about consumption of earth resources and ignoring the consequences is right in context of global ecosystem collapse. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2021/11/caught-up-in-complexity/

kinda goes on. i don't agree with some elements, more on the material side of things, but i think its interesting to read academia-brainwaves occasionally. kinda ties back into some things like Eye of the Needle and others is that like "renewables" is wrong because it's actually still depleting finite resources and dumping externalities out into the ecosystem which will, it has to, have consequences. now you can get more into sort of practice philosophical side is well yeah that's all well an good, but we're never going to give up opulent consuming so lets make it less bad and maybe 10 generations from now people will realize the err of their ways and live at an equilibrium of consumption = replenishment; but thats for them to fix, we just took the status quo and made things less bad while preserving it and our job is done. there is probably some merit in theory to that but also lol

Marenghi posted:

He's not wrong. All these solutions to climate change, carbon capture facilities and mass car electrification etc are just going to push the problem from climate change to resource depletion.

The Wisest Moron posted:

And WA continues to stay nice and normal. Surely nothing bad can happen while straddling the line between two temperature extremes, right?

CommieGIR posted:

Gonna ask nicely: Do not come into D&D and promote CSPAM threads, thanks.

Booourns posted:

commiegir very clearly gets mad whenever they see "cspam" posted in D&D in any context and it's pretty funny

BIG HEADLINE posted:

It doesn't matter, though - since they're not going to employ nuclear weapons even if they do invade. Can't rule out nerve agents, though.

Marenghi posted:

Went to check in on the DD climate thread, they went quiet after COP but few posts since then.
What are they up to, oh cool they've discovered nature abhors a dome through the banner ad and seem to be realizing the scale of the problem.

Someone pointed them to this thread for more of that discussion and the mod wasn't happy.

Thug Lessons posted:

Okay. My perspective differs. I think the regular first world American life will be mostly unchanged in thirty years, and the aging doomers will still think the climate apocalypse is coming but we just had the timeline slightly off.