[Biosphere Collapse] 420 days of blazin' it

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Biosphere Collapse] 420 days of blazin' it

«‹›1937 »

(Thread IKs: Stereotype)

Fell Mood: Jul 2, 2022; A terrible Fell look!

scary ghost dog posted:

i hope one piece manages to finish in time

# ? Jan 4, 2024 16:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 13:20

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

hamas ftw posted:

isn't it obvious? the clathrate gun is going off right now, 2023 is what that process looks like:

at a conservative estimate, that's +/- 0.5 C of additional warming between mid-2023 (~1.5C) and now (~2.0C). that's a rate of global heating of approximately +1C per year, not 1C/decade or 1C/century. a simple straight-line interpolation of this rate of heating yields the following low-end numbers:

by the start of 2025: +3.0 C over baseline
by 2030: +8.0 C over baseline
by 2040: +18.0 C over baseline
by 2050: +28.0 C over baseline
by 2100: +78.0 C over baseline

however, the rate of heating is accelerating. the second derivative of heating? that's also accelerating. so realistically, actual rates of heating are going to be significantly higher, and it's only going to keep accelerating until there's nothing left to release and nothing left to burn. an apocalyptic runaway clathrate reaction isn't a hypothetical anymore, it's already happening. we're about a year into that process. we're going to look back on 2023 as the last 'normal' year before the great dying really began in earnest.

gently caress it, go ahead and scream if it helps you feel better. this rollercoaster's going down anyway, might as well scream a little

I'll bet you $50,000 we don't hit +8c by 2030.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 17:01

Cromulent_Chill: Apr 6, 2009

Salt Fish posted:

I'll bet you $50,000 we don't hit +8c by 2030.

That's what a steak will cost in 2030

# ? Jan 4, 2024 17:04

mags: May 30, 2008; I am a congenital optimist.

Salt Fish posted:

I'll bet you $50,000 we don't hit +8c by 2030.

+8c by 2025

# ? Jan 4, 2024 17:09

TeenageArchipelago: Jul 23, 2013

bedpan posted:

1.5C is going to be forgotten so hard

3c is going to be skipped over

# ? Jan 4, 2024 17:18

AceClown: Sep 11, 2005

please stop showing me these graphs

# ? Jan 4, 2024 17:59

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

you can clearly see that this year is within historical trends, doomer

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:11

TeenageArchipelago: Jul 23, 2013

Do you really think that a lake that big is going to freeze? Really?

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:14

TeenageArchipelago: Jul 23, 2013

Also it's wild just how many climate change deniers around here will agree with "you just can't go ice fishing as early as you used to be able to" when it's completely out of any political context

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:23

hamas ftw: Nov 25, 2023; by Fluffdaddy

Salt Fish posted:

I'll bet you $50,000 we don't hit +8c by 2030.

you're absolutely right! it's a complex, world-spanning nonlinear system and this is all just guesswork

like I said, those numbers were assuming a constant rate of temperature change based on current trends. but that rate of temperature change is accelerating. the second order acceleration, the acceleration of that rate of change? also accelerating.

and anything other than a straight line gets much worse, even if we make the following assumptions to be even more conservative:
- let's assume half this change was due to el nino/the end of december number is an outlier (mid-2023 to start of december 2023, 1.48-1.76, that's a 2023 rate of change of only 0.56 C/year).
- we were already warming at +0.1 C/year in 2020, before this change to the heating regime began (so that it's not as abrupt of an increase as we've actually seen)
- we were already +1 C above baseline in 2020 (again, so that the rate of increase is smaller than observed)
- no second order acceleration

so instead we get:
by the start of 2025: +2.4 C over baseline (+0.68 C/yr)
by 2030: +7.5 C over baseline (+1.25 C/yr)
by 2040: +26.3 C over baseline (+2.4 C/yr)
by 2050: +56.7 C over baseline (+3.5 C/yr)
by 2100: +380.8 C over baseline (+9.3 C/yr)

there probably isn't enough frozen methane to keep up this trend indefinitely and turn earth into venus but there's definitely enough to catastrophically destabilize the biosphere and kill us long before the NYC pension fund achieves a net zero emissions portfolio

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:37

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

so what i'm hearing is you were exaggerating, and the truth is

not

that

bad

yet

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:46

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:

so what i'm hearing is you were exaggerating, and the truth is

not

that

bad

yet

not as good as last year but better than next year

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:47

hamas ftw: Nov 25, 2023; by Fluffdaddy

bedpan posted:

not as good as last year but better than next year

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:47

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

hamas ftw posted:

you're absolutely right! it's a complex, world-spanning nonlinear system and this is all just guesswork

like I said, those numbers were assuming a constant rate of temperature change based on current trends. but that rate of temperature change is accelerating. the second order acceleration, the acceleration of that rate of change? also accelerating.

and anything other than a straight line gets much worse, even if we make the following assumptions to be even more conservative:
- let's assume half this change was due to el nino/the end of december number is an outlier (mid-2023 to start of december 2023, 1.48-1.76, that's a 2023 rate of change of only 0.56 C/year).
- we were already warming at +0.1 C/year in 2020, before this change to the heating regime began (so that it's not as abrupt of an increase as we've actually seen)
- we were already +1 C above baseline in 2020 (again, so that the rate of increase is smaller than observed)
- no second order acceleration

so instead we get:
by the start of 2025: +2.4 C over baseline (+0.68 C/yr)
by 2030: +7.5 C over baseline (+1.25 C/yr)
by 2040: +26.3 C over baseline (+2.4 C/yr)
by 2050: +56.7 C over baseline (+3.5 C/yr)
by 2100: +380.8 C over baseline (+9.3 C/yr)

there probably isn't enough frozen methane to keep up this trend indefinitely and turn earth into venus but there's definitely enough to catastrophically destabilize the biosphere and kill us long before the NYC pension fund achieves a net zero emissions portfolio

lol i do love me some napkin math

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:50

SniperWoreConverse: Mar 20, 2010; Gun Saliva

*me perusing upcoming releases*
Earth 2: Ultra High Temperature Edition

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:58

hamas ftw: Nov 25, 2023; by Fluffdaddy

some like it hot

# ? Jan 4, 2024 18:59

Pepe Silvia Browne: Jan 1, 2007

winter, or as it is now known, mud season

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:00

Cabbages and VHS: Aug 25, 2004; Listen, I've been around a bit, you know, and I thought I'd seen some creepy things go on in the movie business, but I really have to say this is the most disgusting thing that's ever happened to me.

When I got to the bottom of a pile of wood I stacked in August this week, hauling it inside, there were frozen mushrooms under it which had clearly grown during the rash of 40-50F weather we just had

maybe I should stop growing weed and grow shrooms instead, they seem well suited to this tropical, humid climate we're building here in Northern Vermont

it's been snowing and I think a lot of skiing is going to open up over the next 2-3 weeks, but that doesn't change the fact that it's ~10-20F warmer than usual.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:09

kyojin: Jun 15, 2005; I MASHED THE KEYS AND LOOK WHAT I MADE

hamas ftw posted:

you're absolutely right! it's a complex, world-spanning nonlinear system and this is all just guesswork

like I said, those numbers were assuming a constant rate of temperature change based on current trends. but that rate of temperature change is accelerating. the second order acceleration, the acceleration of that rate of change? also accelerating.

and anything other than a straight line gets much worse, even if we make the following assumptions to be even more conservative:
- let's assume half this change was due to el nino/the end of december number is an outlier (mid-2023 to start of december 2023, 1.48-1.76, that's a 2023 rate of change of only 0.56 C/year).
- we were already warming at +0.1 C/year in 2020, before this change to the heating regime began (so that it's not as abrupt of an increase as we've actually seen)
- we were already +1 C above baseline in 2020 (again, so that the rate of increase is smaller than observed)
- no second order acceleration

so instead we get:
by the start of 2025: +2.4 C over baseline (+0.68 C/yr)
by 2030: +7.5 C over baseline (+1.25 C/yr)
by 2040: +26.3 C over baseline (+2.4 C/yr)
by 2050: +56.7 C over baseline (+3.5 C/yr)
by 2100: +380.8 C over baseline (+9.3 C/yr)

there probably isn't enough frozen methane to keep up this trend indefinitely and turn earth into venus but there's definitely enough to catastrophically destabilize the biosphere and kill us long before the NYC pension fund achieves a net zero emissions portfolio

As a burnhamite I endorse this

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:32

Skaffen-Amtiskaw: Jun 24, 2023

hamas ftw posted:

you're absolutely right! it's a complex, world-spanning nonlinear system and this is all just guesswork

like I said, those numbers were assuming a constant rate of temperature change based on current trends. but that rate of temperature change is accelerating. the second order acceleration, the acceleration of that rate of change? also accelerating.

and anything other than a straight line gets much worse, even if we make the following assumptions to be even more conservative:
- let's assume half this change was due to el nino/the end of december number is an outlier (mid-2023 to start of december 2023, 1.48-1.76, that's a 2023 rate of change of only 0.56 C/year).
- we were already warming at +0.1 C/year in 2020, before this change to the heating regime began (so that it's not as abrupt of an increase as we've actually seen)
- we were already +1 C above baseline in 2020 (again, so that the rate of increase is smaller than observed)
- no second order acceleration

so instead we get:
by the start of 2025: +2.4 C over baseline (+0.68 C/yr)
by 2030: +7.5 C over baseline (+1.25 C/yr)
by 2040: +26.3 C over baseline (+2.4 C/yr)
by 2050: +56.7 C over baseline (+3.5 C/yr)
by 2100: +380.8 C over baseline (+9.3 C/yr)

there probably isn't enough frozen methane to keep up this trend indefinitely and turn earth into venus but there's definitely enough to catastrophically destabilize the biosphere and kill us long before the NYC pension fund achieves a net zero emissions portfolio

lol

*reads again*

lmao

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:34

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

hamas ftw posted:

you're absolutely right! it's a complex, world-spanning nonlinear system and this is all just guesswork

like I said, those numbers were assuming a constant rate of temperature change based on current trends. but that rate of temperature change is accelerating. the second order acceleration, the acceleration of that rate of change? also accelerating.

and anything other than a straight line gets much worse, even if we make the following assumptions to be even more conservative:
- let's assume half this change was due to el nino/the end of december number is an outlier (mid-2023 to start of december 2023, 1.48-1.76, that's a 2023 rate of change of only 0.56 C/year).
- we were already warming at +0.1 C/year in 2020, before this change to the heating regime began (so that it's not as abrupt of an increase as we've actually seen)
- we were already +1 C above baseline in 2020 (again, so that the rate of increase is smaller than observed)
- no second order acceleration

so instead we get:
by the start of 2025: +2.4 C over baseline (+0.68 C/yr)
by 2030: +7.5 C over baseline (+1.25 C/yr)
by 2040: +26.3 C over baseline (+2.4 C/yr)
by 2050: +56.7 C over baseline (+3.5 C/yr)
by 2100: +380.8 C over baseline (+9.3 C/yr)

there probably isn't enough frozen methane to keep up this trend indefinitely and turn earth into venus but there's definitely enough to catastrophically destabilize the biosphere and kill us long before the NYC pension fund achieves a net zero emissions portfolio

Your heart is in the right place but your calcs are Disco Stu.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:40

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Oh, and right outside my window there is a tree that is going "spring! gently caress yeah!"

Poor dude is gonna get a shock in February. Well, I hope it gets a shock, otherwise things are even more hosed up than I believe then to be (which is extremely).

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:43

Rauros: Aug 25, 2004; wanna go grub thumping?

all these trees better stop using their senses and just learn to read a calendar

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:45

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Microplastics posted:

The rate of acceleration is increasing

in physics, we call da/dt the "jerk"

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:46

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Rauros posted:

all these trees better stop using their senses and just learn to read a calendar

Natural selection will favor trees with schizophrenic behavior. Trusting your actual senses is an evolutionary dead-end where we're going.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:55

skooma512: Feb 8, 2012; You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that my work cafeteria has orange roughy on the menu every week, a fish that takes 20 years before it can reproduce and live to 200 and thus is very easy to overfish, or that they're that they're probably lying and it's not even the fish they say it is.

I think I might send some emails about this before I leave this job. My ecology class from 2009 has prepared me for this.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 19:57

Skaffen-Amtiskaw: Jun 24, 2023

skooma512 posted:

I don't know what's worse, the fact that my work cafeteria has orange roughy on the menu every week, a fish that takes 20 years before it can reproduce and live to 200 and thus is very easy to overfish, or that they're that they're probably lying and it's not even the fish they say it is.

I think I might send some emails about this before I leave this job. My ecology class from 2009 has prepared me for this.

You won�t care.

We�ll all be literally on fire next month anyway. Enjoy roughy in the rough times.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 20:00

skooma512: Feb 8, 2012; You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

Skaffen-Amtiskaw posted:

You won�t care.

We�ll all be literally on fire next month anyway. Enjoy roughy in the rough times.

I mean, I care, but as always, I lack any agency and the people that have it will not lift a finger because they saved 15 dollars on the budget.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 20:08

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

skooma512 posted:

I don't know what's worse, the fact that my work cafeteria has orange roughy on the menu every week, a fish that takes 20 years before it can reproduce and live to 200 and thus is very easy to overfish, or that they're that they're probably lying and it's not even the fish they say it is.

I think I might send some emails about this before I leave this job. My ecology class from 2009 has prepared me for this.

Long-lived fish has had more time to absorb all that sweet mercury and other crap. So it's actually a good thing that it's most likely not the real deal. Enjoy that tilapia

e: My home town is a fishing spot and people pay more than double the price for fresh local fish (that you can see are the real deal) than the "same" packaged/processed fish. Local used to be cheaper because it was caught right there but nowadays like zero percent of red snapper is actually red snapper unless you have the goddamn full fish in front of you

trucutru has issued a correction as of 20:20 on Jan 4, 2024

# ? Jan 4, 2024 20:12

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

hamas ftw posted:

you're absolutely right! it's a complex, world-spanning nonlinear system and this is all just guesswork

trucutru posted:

Your heart is in the right place but your calcs are Disco Stu.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 20:41

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Rauros posted:

all these trees better stop using their senses and just learn to read a calendar

They need to put out leaves in winter to grow, and then drop them in the summer when its too hot for vegetation to live.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 20:43

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

TeenageArchipelago posted:

Do you really think that a lake that big is going to freeze? Really?

it's ridiculous to even imagine

# ? Jan 4, 2024 20:49

Car Hater: May 7, 2007; wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

Sure could go for that ice age that 70's pop-sci promised us right about now...

# ? Jan 4, 2024 21:11

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:

i tried to talk about climate change a little bit with some family over the holidays, mainly because a couple people mentioned several times about how warm it was and had been. we talked about all kinds of things, but the conclusion was "well we've solved every other problem, we'll solve this one."

i was just kinda exhausted with the conversation at that point and gave up. ... the same person a day prior had suggested that people who don't vote Democratic don't deserve social benefits, so,

my occasional conversations with family/friends that just watch msnbc/etc. makes me feel more hopeless than any right-wing bullshit or doomer youtube video

I come across this one a lot too, and to be honest I haven't figured out an effective rebuttal. Maybe there isn't one, since it's fundamentally a faith-based argument. Can't just try to respond with "but what if we can't solve it?" because that's like asking a religious person "but what if God doesn't actually exist?"

# ? Jan 4, 2024 21:12

celadon: Jan 2, 2023

the exponential improvements in consumer electronics over the last fifty years have conditioned the public to think such progress is possible in all scientific fields, and that if push comes to shove, we can see similar advancements anywhere. so the idea that "we'll figure it out when we need to" is pretty deeply wired into the collective consciousness, even if it is not true for many areas

# ? Jan 4, 2024 21:17

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

I come across this one a lot too, and to be honest I haven't figured out an effective rebuttal. Maybe there isn't one, since it's fundamentally a faith-based argument. Can't just try to respond with "but what if we can't solve it?" because that's like asking a religious person "but what if God doesn't actually exist?"

the response is "millions of people in the richest country in the history of civilization go hungry every day, as a start," but I was just done with the conversation at that point. the people i was talking to, all family, agreed eventually with how DIRE things are, but eventually just decided "well i don't have the answer, but someone else does, surely"

crazy, but common.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 21:30

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

the january 3rd radio ecoshock is a great one, btw: https://www.ecoshock.org/audio-on-demand/2024-radio-ecoshock-show

quote:

Why Renewables Cannot Power Your World � Simon Michaux January 3, 2024 � Renewables cannot power the world we know. Dr. Simon Michaux from the Geological Survey of Finland crunched the numbers: not enough time, and not enough metals. In this unique interview on Rachel Donald�s PlanetCritical broadcast, Michaux explains the limits � and what we CAN do in a sustainable society.

# ? Jan 4, 2024 21:32

OIL PANIC: Dec 22, 2022; CAUTIONS
_{_{...

4. ... (If the battery is exhausted, the display of the liquid crystal will become vague and difficult to look at.)

...

7. Do not use volatile oils such as thinner or benzine and alcohol for wiping.}}

Car Hater posted:

There's a whole little cottage industry of anti-doom science communicators that just happen to have changed their minds and decided that optimism is mandatory when they had kids.

Did you know that:
Carbon emissions per capita are actually down
Deforestation peaked back in the 1980s
The air we breathe now is vastly improved from centuries ago
And more people died from natural disasters a hundred years ago?

Yeah that's right, doomers BTFO by facts and logic! I loving love Science!

lol, yeah, and our great grandchildrens' carbon footprint, even if we pass no invasive laws to try to address climate change, is projected to be much lower than our own, both in per capita and absolute terms!

# ? Jan 4, 2024 22:03

AceClown: Sep 11, 2005

https://x.com/PGDynes/status/1742976906583060795?s=20

High risk strategy!

# ? Jan 4, 2024 22:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 13:20

Stereotype: Apr 24, 2010; College Slice

lol at calling it a strategy

# ? Jan 4, 2024 22:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Biosphere Collapse] 420 days of blazin' it

«‹›1937 »