Microplastics posted:

"I'm confident a technological solution will be found" I nervously insist as I pinch another nugget off into the pile of faeces that now reaches my knees

Cuttlefush posted:

yeah, RCP8.5 is iirc still the best fitting for historical cumulative co2 and that's what i'd bet on unless stops being true. compare "RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2emissions" (https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2007117117) with "Plausible 2005–2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100" (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf/meta)

the latter's primary author, roger pielke jr, is an actually existing climate optimist/spoiler or whatever the gently caress he is. his dad, roger pielke sr, was also a dipshit. or they get paid well. i'm sure they've some up in the thread but they're always worth pointing out. also for fun checkhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WtqpmdIAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate to see how many letters pielke puts out about climate models/scenarios are too doomy.

for getting a sense of what 2100 or so could possibly look like, I like papers like "Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction". https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aat1327 for the pretty good article summary or https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.aat1327 for the full paper. that's as good a look into the future as you can probably get without starting to make too many things up. it's also way more grim than the 'lol we all gonna die' so i absolutely understand if some of you want to pass.

Paradoxish posted:

Don't be so pessimistic. Maybe a less connected world will just mean we burn even more carbon as resource rich countries fall back on drastically less efficient and advanced technologies while getting high on their own supply.

MightyBigMinus posted:

the thing about the back half of these predictions/models (say beyond 2060) is that the absolute horror of the 40s and 50s will drive massive behavior/resource-usage change.

you can paint your hopes or fears into that, but at its core its a logistics constraint. crops will die. people will fight. BAU will not be going on in the 70s/80s/90s one way or the other. so its kinda pointless to talk about 3C or 5C at 2100. it gives the current situation too much credit for sustainability.

like, you don't have to believe the specific particulars of ministry for the future, but knowing what we know about how bad the 40s and 50s are going to be, I don't see how global oil tanker shipping, refineries, pipelines and lng ports survive. the needful will be done. even if far too late and just for vengance.

Leroy Diplowski posted:

My capitalist brain wonders how feasible a business model of building a nuke ship and then renting out the power would be. Does building a ship, posting up in a port, and deploying a mobile substation compare to building an actual nuke plant on site? I would imagine that you could at least benefit from the centralization a nuke shipyard would provide.

Paradoxish posted:

Don't be so pessimistic. Maybe a less connected world will just mean we burn even more carbon as resource rich countries fall back on drastically less efficient and advanced technologies while getting high on their own supply.

Cuttlefush posted:

yeah, RCP8.5 is iirc still the best fitting for historical cumulative co2 and that's what i'd bet on unless stops being true. compare "RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2emissions" (https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2007117117) with "Plausible 2005–2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100" (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf/meta)

the latter's primary author, roger pielke jr, is an actually existing climate optimist/spoiler or whatever the gently caress he is. his dad, roger pielke sr, was also a dipshit. or they get paid well. i'm sure they've some up in the thread but they're always worth pointing out. also for fun checkhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WtqpmdIAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate to see how many letters pielke puts out about climate models/scenarios are too doomy.

for getting a sense of what 2100 or so could possibly look like, I like papers like "Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction". https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aat1327 for the pretty good article summary or https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.aat1327 for the full paper. that's as good a look into the future as you can probably get without starting to make too many things up. it's also way more grim than the 'lol we all gonna die' so i absolutely understand if some of you want to pass.

quote:

SSP3: Regional rivalry (A Rocky Road)
"A resurgent nationalism, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts push countries to increasingly focus on domestic or, at most, regional issues. Policies shift over time to become increasingly oriented toward national and regional security issues. Countries focus on achieving energy and food security goals within their own regions at the expense of broader-based development. Investments in education and technological development decline. Economic development is slow, consumption is material-intensive, and inequalities persist or worsen over time. Population growth is low in industrialized and high in developing countries. A low international priority for addressing environmental concerns leads to strong environmental degradation in some regions."[2][11]

quote:

SSP4: Inequality (A Road Divided)
"Highly unequal investments in human capital, combined with increasing disparities in economic opportunity and political power, lead to increasing inequalities and stratification both across and within countries. Over time, a gap widens between an internationally-connected society that contributes to knowledge- and capital-intensive sectors of the global economy, and a fragmented collection of lower-income, poorly educated societies that work in a labor intensive, low-tech economy. Social cohesion degrades and conflict and unrest become increasingly common. Technology development is high in the high-tech economy and sectors. The globally connected energy sector diversifies, with investments in both carbon-intensive fuels like coal and unconventional oil, but also low-carbon energy sources. Environmental policies focus on local issues around middle and high income areas."

quote:

SSP5: Fossil-Fueled Development (Taking the Highway)
"This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary."

Xaris posted:

I actually think this is a fairly plausible scenario that we have to rapidly and gigantuously consume more energy to paper over various climate and socioeconomic failings, the contradictions of capital and failing of a planet can be bandaided by expending more energy. but it’s neither a permanent thing because we will still run out of bountiful energy and the wound still hemorrhages out

so at some point it will contract

Trabisnikof posted:

This is some technical nitpicking, but the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are far better models of actual human activity than the Representative Concentration Pathways. The RCPs were never intended to model reality. For the RCPs they came up with the concentration number for each model, so RCP 8.5 is modeling a world with 8.5 w/m^2 of radiative forcing. While the SSPs are actually modeling human emissions and actions within their pathways.

MightyBigMinus posted:

the thing about the back half of these predictions/models (say beyond 2060) is that the absolute horror of the 40s and 50s will drive massive behavior/resource-usage change.

you can paint your hopes or fears into that, but at its core its a logistics constraint. crops will die. people will fight. BAU will not be going on in the 70s/80s/90s one way or the other. so its kinda pointless to talk about 3C or 5C at 2100. it gives the current situation too much credit for sustainability.

like, you don't have to believe the specific particulars of ministry for the future, but knowing what we know about how bad the 40s and 50s are going to be, I don't see how global oil tanker shipping, refineries, pipelines and lng ports survive. the needful will be done. even if far too late and just for vengance.

Mola Yam posted:

i spent five minutes on this could i get a pity quote

r u ready to WALK posted:

4d3d3d posted:

Pro-natalists keep making up people to get angry at, which I guess is in keeping with their worldview if nothing else

4d3d3d posted:

That was two weeks ago. This thread gets poo poo up by the worst posters twice a month, and it's about the most important issue possible

biceps crimes posted:

the frequency in which this thread gets poo poo up is increasing at an alarming rate

Paradoxish posted:

Don't be so pessimistic. Maybe a less connected world will just mean we burn even more carbon as resource rich countries fall back on drastically less efficient and advanced technologies while getting high on their own supply.

TehSaurus posted:

this is fully what I expect to happen when resource scarcity becomes an existential crisis. maybe the doomsday clock people have it backwards and we need nuclear Armageddon to rapidly dismantle capitalism and save the future? someone should push the button asap if not sooner!

AceClown posted:

TehSaurus posted:

this is fully what I expect to happen when resource scarcity becomes an existential crisis. maybe the doomsday clock people have it backwards and we need nuclear Armageddon to rapidly dismantle capitalism and save the future? someone should push the button asap if not sooner!

celadon posted:

If avian flu breaches containment the degree to which appropriate public health responses have been sabotaged will lead to a much more dramatic population decrease than covid saw.

I think the raw effects from population loss will be substantial as well as the chance of localized supply/logistics collapses. Though this could do the thing where things get worse because insufficient industry reduces atmospheric reflection.

biosphere collapse posted:

this could do the thing where things get worse

TehSaurus posted:

this is fully what I expect to happen when resource scarcity becomes an existential crisis. maybe the doomsday clock people have it backwards and we need nuclear Armageddon to rapidly dismantle capitalism and save the future? someone should push the button asap if not sooner!

BCR posted:

While its still up and free.

The Collapse TV show.

Paradoxish posted:

Being 100% honest, the total dissolution of public health as a concept probably would have utterly broken me and turned me into a legit misanthrope without having been able to laugh about it with the COVID thread. This thread kind of serves a similar purpose as I watch the media just intentionally ignore the seriousness of the climate situation.

celadon posted:

If avian flu breaches containment the degree to which appropriate public health responses have been sabotaged will lead to a much more dramatic population decrease than covid saw.

I think the raw effects from population loss will be substantial as well as the chance of localized supply/logistics collapses. Though this could do the thing where things get worse because insufficient industry reduces atmospheric reflection.

Trabisnikof posted:

This is some technical nitpicking, but the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are far better models of actual human activity than the Representative Concentration Pathways. The RCPs were never intended to model reality. For the RCPs they came up with the concentration number for each model, so RCP 8.5 is modeling a world with 8.5 w/m^2 of radiative forcing. While the SSPs are actually modeling human emissions and actions within their pathways.


Plus SSPs give us 3 bad scenarios to choose from:

SSP3: Regional Rivalry (A Rocky Road)

SSP4: Inequality (A Road divided)

SSP5: Fossil-fueled Development (Taking the Highway)

(While SSP5 has some glowing language, it’s still a bad times scenario.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways

Osv18 posted:

dismissing people as 'cranks' is some A grade university discourse bullshit.

TehSaurus posted:

(also if I don’t use p-values how can I hack my lovely data to make up for my lousy experimental design???)

Homeless Friend posted:

bad website formatting=crank. simple

Homeless Friend posted:

bad website formatting=crank. simple

Osv18 posted:

dismissing people as 'cranks' is some A grade university discourse bullshit. there is no center of epistemological legitimacy anymore from which to designate 'cranks', not when this entire civilization has turned out to be a disastrous wrong turn. if you have a coherent argument against the maximum power principle (which Hanson did not invent, it was Lokta in the 20's) or against Jacobson (who spent 40 years fighting in the trenches before giving up and becoming a doomer) then by all means, I'd love to hear them.