|
"Zanzibar swimming death crabs being investigated" sounds like a cool MGS mission.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
this_is_fine.gif https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/15/weather/mississippi-river-low-water-tower-rock-climate/index.html You do have to  how the initial reporting for this story was "people's Mississippi river cruises were cut short because the boats couldn't go any further."Ah, this is the good poo poo: https://fortune.com/2022/10/14/mississippi-river-water-near-record-low-supply-chains-disruption/ BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Oct 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
 https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germany-Is-Dismantling-A-Wind-Farm-To-Make-Way-For-A-Coal-Mine.amp.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:
When did Germany become so pants on head stupid evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-crisis-un-pathway-1-5-cGuardian posted:Climate crisis: UN finds ‘no credible pathway to 1.5C in place' Ahh classic, in the 4 ish years I've been following this thread it's been exactly this the whole way through, promises for insufficient change that aren't followed through. We've known for the last 20 years this was coming, we've done nothing, we're getting out of the loving around stage and into the finding out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
There's been a ton of progress in the last decade. I still think it's a hard sell to hit 1.5/2C but we've certainly avoided a mad max apocalyptic hellscape. https://twitter.com/dwallacewells/status/1585793168020316160?s=20&t=teOuauykH7ua7G48cxue0g quote:You can never really see the future, only imagine it, then try to make sense of the new world when it arrives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 06:00
|
|
|
So cool that big oil is losing so much money to the rise of renewables that they won't continue to have endless money to pay for propaganda... haha yeah right
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There's been a ton of progress in the last decade. I still think it's a hard sell to hit 1.5/2C but we've certainly avoided a mad max apocalyptic hellscape. Does this certainty include the potential feedback loops like methane releases in its worst case maximums? Besides that, my understanding is 2-3 degrees is a catastrophic level of warming in terms of social stability, food security, coastal flooding and many other Very Bad Things in our lifetime TheBlackVegetable fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There's been a ton of progress in the last decade. I still think it's a hard sell to hit 1.5/2C but we've certainly avoided a mad max apocalyptic hellscape. This is the biggest delusional cope I have ever seen. "We've managed to avoid certain civilization collapse for global catastrophe and only potential collapse!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 07:26
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:Besides that, my understanding is 2-3 degrees is a catastrophic level of warming in terms of social stability, food security, coastal flooding and many other Very Bad Things in our lifetime
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I still think it's a hard sell to hit 1.5/2C but we've certainly avoided a mad max apocalyptic hellscape. Don’t set the bar of success too high!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There's been a ton of progress in the last decade. I still think it's a hard sell to hit 1.5/2C but we've certainly avoided a mad max apocalyptic hellscape. There has not "been a ton of progress in the past decade." A completely delusional statement. It's even contradicted by the UN report. CO2 output increased the whole time except for the brief blip during lockdowns. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/new-maps-of-ancient-warming-reveal-strong-response-to-carbon-dioxide/ Also some new work on paleoclimate CO2 sensitivity. Turns out it was higher than thought (~6.7 +- 2.5 C per doubling) during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum about 30Mya, which was probably triggered by magma infiltrating oil-bearing sediment. Among other things, it points to greater CO2 sensitivity at higher CO2, which is something we should probably keep in mind as we debate whether this is a big deal or if we are making progress (we aren't). cat botherer fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:There's been a ton of progress in the last decade. I still think it's a hard sell to hit 1.5/2C but we've certainly avoided a mad max apocalyptic hellscape. Yeah I was wondering when this article was going to be posted in this thread. Basically, Wallace-Wells is trying real hard to put a positive spin on what is an increasingly terrifying situation. The manner in which he is doing it is: a) flawed: focuses too much on linear models, whereas the paleoclimate record is all about non-linear changes (brought on by so-called "tipping points"), b) way too small in scope: no mention of glacier melts and only a passing mention — inside an image caption — of rising ocean temperatures, and, c) human-centric: nothing about other species except when it relates directly to people, i.e. "threatening ocean biodiversity and affecting the protein supply for hundreds of millions of people", and a few plants that have been hyped up as "sustainable supercrops" which is utterly laughable It also feels disjointed and self-contradictory. He first goes "yeah things are bad but they aren't as bad as our worst predictions!" and then he quotes a whole bunch of experts who are like "things are absolutely terrible and they are getting more terrible everyday". He goes "we have made progress!" and then he lists climate disaster after climate disaster and goes "I am alarmed and so should you be!" quote:Overall emissions have not yet begun to decline, and it’s a long way from peak down to zero, making all these changes to expectations mostly notional, for now — a different set of lines being drawn naďvely on a whiteboard and waiting to be made real. New emissions peaks are expected both this year and next, which means that more damage is being done to the future climate of the planet right now than at any previous point in history. Things will get worse before they even stabilize. There's really only one proper response to the above: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Yeah I was wondering when this article was going to be posted in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Guardian posted:“Every fraction of a degree matters: to vulnerable communities, to ecosystems, and to every one of us.” Andersen said action would also bring cleaner air, green jobs and access to electricity for millions." This is a weird nitpick, but I'm half-wondering if the use of the phrase "vulnerable communities" in reports like this has the opposite effect of making people care less than they would otherwise. Like, "well, I'm pretty sure my community's not vulnerable, so this is really someone else's problem." I mean, it does go on to say "and to every one of us" but then why even mention the vulnerable communities in the first place, if we are all vulnerable? What is the purpose of using this language?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 17:46
|
|
|
quote:But we are getting a clearer map of climate change, and however intimidating it looks, that new world must be made navigable — through action to limit the damage and adaptation to defend what can’t be stopped. At four degrees, the impacts of warming appeared overwhelming, but at two degrees, the impacts would not be the whole of our human fate, only the landscape on which a new future will be built. UN report: We're headed for 2.6 degrees if everyone sticks to their pledges. DWW: Oh, two degrees, not too bad! quote:“We’ve come a long way, and we’ve still got a long way to go,” says Hayhoe, the Canadian scientist, comparing the world’s progress to a long hike. “We’re halfway there. Look at the great view behind you. We actually made it up halfway, and it was a hard slog. So take a breather, pat yourself on the back, but then look up — that’s where we have to go. So let’s keep on going.” I was really weirded out by this quote, considering we haven't even begun to reduce emissions. Then I realized he probably thinks increasing emissions counts as the first half, so if we turn it around right now we're already halfway there. The whole thing reads at best like bargaining drivel, at worst trying to muddy the waters on the same day the Emissions Gap Report was published. The DWW article is huge, so he must've had it ready to go in advance. He even has a link that mentions "report" that just goes to another bullshit article. He doesn't name it anywhere either, so it's hard to search for it or even know which report he's talking about. And they peppered the whole thing with greenwashing pics. I already knew he was just a  guy, but doubly glad now that I never bothered with any of his books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Clarste posted:This is a weird nitpick, but I'm half-wondering if the use of the phrase "vulnerable communities" in reports like this has the opposite effect of making people care less than they would otherwise. Like, "well, I'm pretty sure my community's not vulnerable, so this is really someone else's problem." I mean, it does go on to say "and to every one of us" but then why even mention the vulnerable communities in the first place, if we are all vulnerable? What is the purpose of using this language? He adds this further down: quote:Indeed, already we can say a given heat wave was made 30 times more likely by climate change, or that it was a few degrees hotter than it would have been without climate change, and both would be true. We’ll be able to talk about the contributions of warming to disasters that buckle whole nations, as the recent monsoon flooding in Pakistan has, or about the human contributions to such vulnerability. I think you're spot on. It's weasely language providing an out: "This is a Pakistan problem".
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Subtext is if you're rich you're safe
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:I already knew he was just a He's a poor writer, but I still think you are being somewhat unfair because he's most known for his book The Uninhabitable Earth which actually does do justice to the bleakness of the subject. It earned him the "doomer" label when it came out just three years ago. The New York Intelligencer article of the same title that gave birth to the book opens with this: quote:I. ‘Doomsday’ I don't know what prompted his NYTimes article, though. It's possible that he wrote a very pessimistic one and the editors told him it was too dark. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Oct 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:He's a poor writer, but I still think you are being somewhat unfair because he's most known for his book The Uninhabitable Earth which actually does do justice to the bleakness of the subject. It earned him the "doomer" label when it came out just three years ago. Yeah... I still have the capacity to get frustrated by articles like that, so maybe that's showing a little. Please don't tell anyone I got mad  On the other hand, even if the editors yanked him hard (all the self-contradictions say yes), he's still on their payroll and enabling what amounts to a smokescreen against the much bleaker actual science that just came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
As someone who actually read the new article and his earlier article and book, it seemed to me to be a fair balancing of the current state of affairs as I understand it? i.e. “It’s looking like we’re not apocalypse 8.5C hosed, we’re not near-apocalypse 5C hosed, we’re only third-world apocalypse / global north severely disrupted 3C hosed” are people’s issues here with DWW’s writing that he’s not more open and honest about the fact that subtext of all climate action across the globe has been and will now continue to be as outcomes become more certain that poor countries and people will bear the vast majority of the horribleness to come (and that rich / northern countries continue to take advantage of this fact?) Or is the issue that he’s completely wrong and that we’re actually apocalypse hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
I think we are actually apocalypse hosed because there's so many unconsidered tipping points and so many bad assumptions that good changes will persist through the various disasters. It's more likely that as we encounter increasingly desperate material conditions we fall back on burning poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
The only feedback loop that matters is first-world people having to deal with true scarcity for the first time. It won't be "oh dear what hubris have we indulged in how may we save ourselves," it'll be "chuck the poor into the furnaces if they refuse to work if it'll keep my lights and heat on even an extra week."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Yeah if people think the second half of the 20th century was bad for American Imperialism just wait until real imperialism occurs. Even if inflation was not an issue in other economic sectors, the rising gas prices alone (10% actual scarcity / 90% corporate profiteering and of course plain ol propaganda) of people filling up their loving precious GIANT CARZ are already going to allow Republicans to win back enough branches of government to cement their permanent minority rule. And of course that will snowball into even more accelerationism / climate change ignorance. It really feels like culturally we're at the "WE AINT SEEN NOTHING YET!" vibes of Wiley Coyote jumping off a cliff with wings made of utter bullshit and not looking down yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
We haven't done anything substantial to unfuck ourselves which is just a narrative for libs to take false comfort in while demanding that nothing else fundamentally changes. All the Paris promises are worthless, the only thing we've achieved is adding renewables on top of all the oil we were going to burn anyway. Human activity has caused climate change, the form and character of the activities causing this change is known and every year we increase those activities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Can't believe people in this thread now sound like a bunch of doomers! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:Can't believe people in this thread now sound like a bunch of doomers! drat son, your first probation in 15 years of posting. You could at least have made it a good one! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Trying to be a realist these days is pretty much in parallel with being a pessimist / doomer. I have a friend who is a climate scientist (studying loving glaciers of all things) and they have told me that they need to put on an absolute fake persona around most people because most Americans just don’t want to hear the truth about where the trends are going. Also I work in computer networking, and my entire career as it exists today didn’t really exist 50 years ago. My friend thinks the same thing of them studying glaciers for a profession- only that their profession won’t exist in 50 years. And that’s them putting on a brave face and trying to collect data before glaciers go extinct and not just straight up doomer talk or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:Does this certainty include the potential feedback loops like methane releases in its worst case maximums? The IPCC includes feedback effects in their estimates. TheBlackVegetable posted:Besides that, my understanding is 2-3 degrees is a catastrophic level of warming in terms of social stability, food security, coastal flooding and many other Very Bad Things in our lifetime Any warming is or at least in the timescales we've done in it - under a Century - is going to be bad. The 1.5/2C threshold was designed in a way we thought this was the maximum ability for humanity to adjust. It looks like we're probably going to miss that and it sucks yet that is quite far from the end of the world. If you live in a temperate climate not directly next to a large body of water, it might not matter much but if you are poor subsistence farmer with a home next to the ocean in tropical region things are going to definitely get dicey. How humanity reacts is going to be way important than how our climate changes. cat botherer posted:There has not "been a ton of progress in the past decade." A completely delusional statement. It's even contradicted by the UN report. CO2 output increased the whole time except for the brief blip during lockdowns. This is completely untrue. The decline of coal replaced with Natural Gas and Renewables along with electric vehicles is a huge big deal. https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1585495842487603200?s=20&t=eYFCYpi9etVZLI9WHfq3iw https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1585693861396914176?s=20&t=eYFCYpi9etVZLI9WHfq3iw
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:As someone who actually read the new article and his earlier article and book, it seemed to me to be a fair balancing of the current state of affairs as I understand it? i.e. “It’s looking like we’re not apocalypse 8.5C hosed, we’re not near-apocalypse 5C hosed, we’re only third-world apocalypse / global north severely disrupted 3C hosed” are people’s issues here with DWW’s writing that he’s not more open and honest about the fact that subtext of all climate action across the globe has been and will now continue to be as outcomes become more certain that poor countries and people will bear the vast majority of the horribleness to come (and that rich / northern countries continue to take advantage of this fact?) Or is the issue that he’s completely wrong and that we’re actually apocalypse hosed. For what it's worth, The Inhabitable Earth I think is a good book and DWW is at least a decent writer but I would highly encourage everyone to also read about the Energy Industry. Daniel Yergin is freaking phenomenal. https://twitter.com/RichardMeyerDC/status/1465312949380210690?s=20&t=eYFCYpi9etVZLI9WHfq3iw
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The IPCC includes feedback effects in their estimates. It does suck! It sucks so much, one might say the best case scenario is for the way we live now to end at any cost! Yes, any cost! To watch our world progress in this way and know it won't make the logical ethical changes needed to avoid global catastrophe... suffering lasting far longer than a human lifespan, affecting the least complicit, affecting the most exploited and marginalized before it reaches those who benefit from the rape of our worlds future. I can't imagine anything more important than tackling this issue, yet through open willful self-interest or programming and human nature, I'm still often told all the reasons we technically can't stop destroying the future by people online and off. Sometimes it's even a condescending lecture. "You claim to care so much about this but can't even realize there's a war in Ukraine / trump supporters / an election coming up? We can't afford to make these changes now." In my interactions with people I am reflexively compassionate, and I not only reccomend but demand that of everyone. But clinically, academically, on paper, huge amounts of people are going to suffer and die as the result of the way we live, and I admit I fervently wish that fate would instead fall upon those who orchestrated and benefited from this horrifying tragedy. And those parties look a lot like me and most people I know, because it is us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Well, we couldn't afford to make the changes post 9/11 because "otherwise the terrorists win." We couldn't afford to make the changes after 2008 because "we need to strengthen the economy!" We couldn't afford to make the changes after 2012 because "oh, there's a Republican congress and they won't let us  ." We couldn't afford to make the changes post-2016 because  . And we can't make them now because the government and corporations are all run by passively genocidal fuckheads who know they've only got 10-20 years left, max, and clearly don't give a gently caress about their grandchildren's futures.Oh, and we couldn't afford to make the changes after 1991 (aside from a very brief gently caress-giving about the ozone layer) because the ideological "West" had to take a decade-long "victory lap." And we can't afford to make the changes *now* because "wow, people sure went collectively batshit when we told them they *needed* to wear masks...imagine what'd loving happen if we told them they *needed* to make an even BIGGER sacrifice!" ~1991 was probably around the last year where we might've been able to start doing small, substantive things to avoid or at least largely mitigate a Thunderdomed future. 2001 was the "last chance for gas." Now it's just "battlefield triage." BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The IPCC includes feedback effects in their estimates. I repeat that CO2 emissions are increasing. That’s the bottom line. We are failing. You are delusional if you think otherwise, just because some greenwashing PMCs are jerking themselves off because they think they are helping. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:They “include feedbacks” but lol that you think those are know with any degree of certainty. We don’t know what we don’t know. You especially don’t know what you don’t know, because you don’t even know that. This is literally the line denialists use to deny the science. The whole point of the IPCC work is that while you are technically true (that being the best kind of true) that we don't know what we don't know (as is pointed out by denialists that unknown stabilising loops may prevent the climate temp going beyond 1.5 deg - which we all agree is absurd), the science done suggests with confidence the outcomes as contained in the IPCC reports - drastically better or worse being unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
While it is trivially true that the future is unknown until it happens, the point of making scientific predictions is to narrow down a range of possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 07:49
|
|
|
Clarste posted:While it is trivially true that the future is unknown until it happens, the point of making scientific predictions is to narrow down a range of possibilities. And so far our predictions have broadly been pretty accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 09:39
|
|
|
What gets me is how clear it is that we as a world will never commit to sustainability in any controlled beneficial manner. Unpredictable chaos is the nature of existence, thus we can't tell the future, but we've built something more powerful global and resilient than anything previously. Every time chaos threatens our systems, we act in the immediate interest of preserving these systems in the short term, borrowing from the future to prop up the very machine that is destroying it. The people of wealthy comfortable nations increasingly take their peace and prosperity for granted, unwilling and unable to face giving up our absurdly unjust and unsustainable lifestyles. Unable to even imagine it, living as people did even a generation or two ago is an unthinkable notion. Meanwhile the other parts of the world (that we pillaged and exploited to establish our oh so impressive peace and prosperity) are eager to meet our levels of extraction and consumption, a level already unacceptably unsustainable, a doomed course. The details of just exactly how much damage is being done matter less when you see we will never really commit to changing. Not in a controlled constructive manner. Not saying the science should be disregarded, but "we've done slightly less damage than we expected" hardly seems reassuring when all signs point to us keeping the engines running no matter what. It's like producing some article about a fast food box that grows into a tree when it's cast out the window on the side of the highway. It's not a path into a better future, or even a different one. What power exists in our world that can truly change our course? It will never be profitable or popular to adapt to true (or even just adequate) sustainability. Not with this world in the way. I've gone from grimly expecting collapse despite holding out hope, to feeling collapse is inevitable and necessary. "Hope" is a selfish indulgence, a willful trick we play on ourselves (if we even bother to follow or care about the climate and the future of our only world). If living resigned and remorseful as a grim soldier sounds unpalatable, imagine the experiences of our descendants as conditions worsen. Imagine people being starved displaced and poisoned right now, the cost of our comfort, so that we can practice toxic positivity in the face of cartoonishly short sighted greed and denial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:This is literally the line denialists use to deny the science. The whole point of the IPCC work is that while you are technically true (that being the best kind of true) that we don't know what we don't know (as is pointed out by denialists that unknown stabilising loops may prevent the climate temp going beyond 1.5 deg - which we all agree is absurd) quote:the science done suggests with confidence the outcomes as contained in the IPCC reports - drastically better or worse being unlikely. That's not really something we can say with any certainty - and the tail risks are where the worst outcomes are. Realistic systems like these have "fat tails" where there is increased probability of extreme events. "Tipping points" are a huge topic in climate research for a reason, because that is where the real uncertainty over the longer term is. Systems like the Earth are complex, and a perturbed stable regime can shift into a new, very different stable regime. We cannot constrain the physics or initial/boundary conditions well enough to know when these transitions can happen We don't even know what all of these might be, so our estimate of apocalypic tail risk is much more uncertain than in the bulk. Climate change has been small so far, compared to what it will be. Models are more reliable in this situation because they don't need to extrapolate as much. This is not true of trying to predict the climate in 2080. Paleoclimate is probably the best empirical evidence we have of these situations, and there's enough there to show we should be cautious, and not be overconfident. We do not want to gently caress this up. Owling Howl posted:And so far our predictions have broadly been pretty accurate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-06/why-even-scientists-underestimate-climate-change https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05243-6 cat botherer fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The IPCC includes feedback effects in their estimates. Emissions are still increasing! It doesn't loving matter if those emissions are from natural gas if they're still going up you obtuse weirdo! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Emissions are still increasing! It doesn't loving matter if those emissions are from natural gas if they're still going up you obtuse weirdo! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 02:43
|
|