|
Trabisnikof posted:Not at all. You'll just cause more short term harm and slightly less long term harm. Wish I had more of a choice in the matter... Anyway, I wonder how sea ice is doing:
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Hell yeah, it's even lower than last year
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Well, I'm already not having kids, not flying anywhere, and I avoid traveling by car as much as possible, so all that's left is to cut the remaining meat out of my diet and start bicycling, at which point where I live I'm pretty much guaranteed to be murdered by a psychotic motorist, thus ending my ongoing carbon emissions. Progress! Mopey rant: Kinda feels like the next important big societal step is to wrestle government control away from short-sighted corporate allies who would happily drive humanity to extinction in three generations so long as they get to live it up today, and then somehow convince a multi-generational culture of people accustomed to living in a similar way that not going extinct within a couple hundred years is a worthwhile reason to give up any minuscule amount amount of comfort today. If anyone's got any hot tips on how to do that, I'm all ears, because every political cause I've contributed to over the course of my life has gone bust over the last couple of years and I mostly just live in a pathetic slurry of misery now. Couldn't even convince other people on minimum wage that there was a problem with how politics and the economy work, somehow everything up to and including rising sea levels is the fault of welfare queens, apparently, somehow. Now I've got no money and no energy left, and I'm rapidly losing what optimism I may have had left. I'm kind of at the point of working because it's a distraction from existential pain rather than for any real reward it offers. Sorry for being mopey, it's just that the situation is unrelentingly grim and the only advice anyone around me seems to have is 'just stop caring about it, it's not going to directly affect you much, why bother?', which is pretty much the mode of thought that created the problem in the first loving place. I won't deny that it's a tempting option, given that holy poo poo sometimes it feels like we deserve to dead-end as a species. I think I will at least take up biking again, once I have a little money and can actually buy one. It will either improve my health or end it entirely, and either option is probably a step up at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Get involved in actual party politics instead of whatever NGO or small private interest group you were previously part of. Also, get therapy. You're not getting anything done if your mind is clouded by apathy and/or depression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Get involved in actual party politics instead of whatever NGO or small private interest group you were previously part of. Also, get therapy. You're not getting anything done if your mind is clouded by apathy and/or depression. Ruralish US and poor, so my options are limited on the second bit of advice, but overall that's a reasonable response; thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
You should learn to accept that just because the world is already done for, doesn't mean you need to feel sad about it or pretend like what you do matters. People who try to save the world end up sad and broken and dead. I promise you that when catastrophic climate change catches up with whatever part of the world you live in, be it by refugee crisis, wildfire, drought/starvation, floods and hurricanes, or any other such thing, you will not feel any better about all that meat you didn't eat, or all those times you almost got hit by a car for the sake of being able to tell yourself that you personally lived your life in a way that contributed a bit less to the crisis than most other people you know. Chances are you will feel it was a wasted effort in the face of a problem that you didn't cause and could never affect meaningfully. The reward is not worth the cost or the worry or the stress. Just live your life until it ends. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
World isn't going to end, there is a good chance people won't get extinct either. Civilization as we know it will be hosed if we cant avert this but the planet will keep going even if we mess things up here. That said, people wanting to avert a calamity are doing a good thing and the least thing you should do is not discourage them. Ironically when you talk about worst case scenarios it's a detriment to getting people to do something about it because people will conclude as you did here. Everything is hosed anyways, so why bother? It's hard enough to get people to act even when they know their actions have consequences, convince people that something is inevitable then there is zero incentive to act to try to prevent it. Though individual actions like changing consumption habits alone will not do it. We need a complete overhaul of society and how we live.The crucial, absolutely major part of that is curbing population growth. We don't know what the carrying capacity of our planet for humans is but unfortunately that's not the sort of thing you figure out until you've far exceeded it. We are no different than any other species in that respect, eventually growth out paces the environment's capability to sustain your population and things get really bad, really quick. Some say in a worst case scenario, farming and living on the ocean, maximal use of resources with a super efficient diet you could probably get to something like 20 billion but no matter what tech you use there is going to be some cap and you'll eventually hit it with unchecked growth. If not climate change it will be something else that fucks everything up. So assuming we get through this, if you want a better future convince people to adopt and to not have more than two biological children. That doesn't make other actions not useful, little things do add up but slowing population growth is certainly the big one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:Well, I'm already not having kids, not flying anywhere, and I avoid traveling by car as much as possible, so all that's left is to cut the remaining meat out of my diet and start bicycling, at which point where I live I'm pretty much guaranteed to be murdered by a psychotic motorist, thus ending my ongoing carbon emissions. Progress! Violence is one way to change minds. I'm not kidding; we probably aren't breaking hard away from capitalism until climate refugees disrupt normal flow of life in the US and annihilate southeast asia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
A friend called me anti-American recently, and I realized, I'm finding it increasingly hard to feel sympathy for Americans with the knowledge that they'll be mowing down my countrymen as a matter of course within the next 30 years. Any notion that the U. S. A. is/was a net good for civilization falls flat in the face of climate change, for which they're both the most responsible, and the most opposed to take the radical actions required to prevent the suffering of billions - denying the problem as their military makes plans that will only worsen the situation, but are a 'necessary evil' for it means ensuring their comfortable hegemonic position (for however long they can make it last) at the expense of the rest of the planet. Now, from a pragmatic standpoint, I understand this. Self-interest as individuals, as a nation, I get it. If the situation is considered inevitable, then you gotta do what you gotta do. It's why Europe says they care, but when push comes to shove, they are going to be sinking all those refugee boats trying to cross the Mediterranean. It's not 'fine', but sure, things are what they are. Cold cynicism is honest, hopeful delusion that it won't turn out like this is acceptable too. But an American, an individual American that in direct conversation professes love for their country and its greatness 'despite its flaws', doing like an ostrich on the actual most heinous loving poo poo they've inflicted and are well en route on inflicting upon this planet, including climate change, I find increasingly sickening as time goes on. Exceptionalism is a mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
i hope for your sake you're like loving 19 if you're really just now getting american might not be good or great!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:Ny magazine has an article describing where we're heading: The Uninhabitable Earth. Nothing new for people here but perhaps better readable for other people than scientific papers. I saw this article a while ago and I'm not surprised to see it here given that SA tend to lean towards the more (though I hesitate to use this term) alarmist views on climate change. Basically, it has a lot of problems. Climate Feedback did a fact check of the article, and the comments from climate experts range from expressing concerns to outright attacks. Some of the choice quotes include that the article "focuses almost exclusively on worst case scenarios", dismissing its premise as "pure hyperbole", and that "the article contains a number of claims that are factually wrong, and a number of claims that are, to my knowledge, not substantiated by research". You can read the full comments here: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...-wallace-wells/ I think there's some value in discussing these worst-case scenarios, but not in taking them for granted or presenting them as scientific view of climate change. It's worth noting that there's also scenarios on the other extreme, where the earth stays below a 2 C limit with little actual mitigation. As one of the researchers points out, it may well be true that we focus too much on median scenarios, but an over-emphasis on extreme scenarios (with a correspondingly cavalier attitude towards the facts) isn't an effective antidote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
The idea that odds are their lives will only be mildly inconvenienced - in the abstract - is what stops people from taking action and being suitably outraged. Worst case scenarios need to be recognized as the chambered bullet in a game of russian roulette capitalism is playing with the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
I think discussing things from the standpoint of 'worst case scenario' makes a lot of sense when the estimates continually become more dire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I'm increasingly wondering about the large-scale viability of vertical farming. Previously I thought of it as a techno-centric fantasy to avoid dealing with the need to mitigate climate change, or as simply impractical. However if we're looking at large scale disruptions to traditional agriculture even assuming optimistic carbon emission reductions then it might be something to take seriously as a way to help food security (or figure out how to grow wheat in the Canadian shield). Any thoughts? From what I can tell it's still an order of magnitude more expensive than farm-derived produce. Indoor farming, and vertical farming especially, are super cool. They're also promising in that there's already both small- and large-scale operations showing commercial viability, so we might realistically see significant tonnage of vegetable production moving indoors over the next few decades. They're incredibly productive systems that can produce higher yields per input of water and fertilizer, and even non-vertical operations have far higher yield per acre compared to conventional farms, (with verticals potentially expanding that by orders of magnitude). In an ideal world you'd want to do all agriculture vertically. The bad news is that vertical farming isn't actually a carbon mitigation measure. They replace solar radiation input with electrically-generated lighting systems, with most of that energy coming from the burning of fossil fuels, so vertical farms end up with a significantly higher greenhouse gas produced compared to fields. Slapping solar panels on the roof doesn't even come close to outweighing the lighting and climate control costs. You'd have to see massive gains in renewable efficiency as well as declining energy prices to even break even in terms of environmental impact. There's also limits on what you can grow indoors, with almost all operations focusing on high-water-weight/low-calorie leafy greens and valuable herbs like basil and mint, while cereals and most other staples aren't even close to economical to grow indoors. Cereals, livestock and soya are the major land-use culprits, and soya's really the only one of those with even the potential to move indoors, with that potential currently entirely unrealized. The best I can say is that if we fully de-carbonize electrical generation, then we can start looking at vertical farming as a mitigation technique. That's a tall order, and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense because once we're on 100% renewables the biggest problems are solved. I actually see it almost entirely as a land-use solution that can be utilized to help reduce the acreage of agricultural land after we've solved this whole climate problem, rather than something that can mitigate climate change itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Load a bullet, spin the cylinder and lock. Grab a child and point the barrel at their head. Offer their parents a thousand dollars for every time they let you pull the trigger. That is climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:I think discussing things from the standpoint of 'worst case scenario' makes a lot of sense when the estimates continually become more dire. I don't think they're becoming increasingly dire. I posted a report here a while back that the Paris agreement was actually sufficient to keep earth below 2 C warming. I think there's a misconception among the people that post here that the situation is growing increasingly dire because they're reading so many articles like the one from NY Mag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I saw this article a while ago and I'm not surprised to see it here given that SA tend to lean towards the more (though I hesitate to use this term) alarmist views on climate change. Basically, it has a lot of problems. Climate Feedback did a fact check of the article, and the comments from climate experts range from expressing concerns to outright attacks. Some of the choice quotes include that the article "focuses almost exclusively on worst case scenarios", dismissing its premise as "pure hyperbole", and that "the article contains a number of claims that are factually wrong, and a number of claims that are, to my knowledge, not substantiated by research". You can read the full comments here: gently caress you and this whole smarmy attitude the DECADES for this kind of even-handed reasonable debate were the 80s and 90s. if you're still playing this teach-the-controversy/analysis-paralysis note in 2017 you're the enemy. the only possible way out of this is a mobilization effort that makes ww2 look like a camping trip, and you're all like "ummmm... the nazi's might give france back!" StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Load a bullet, spin the cylinder and lock. Grab a child and point the barrel at their head. Offer their parents a thousand dollars for every time they let you pull the trigger. That is climate change. Stop giving TV execs gameshow ideas
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:gently caress you and this whole smarmy attitude This isn't "teach the controversy". When you show a climate change article to a team of experts and what they come back with is, "this plays fast and loose with the facts and doesn't reflect a scientific view of climate change", you have some problems. Stop acting like this is a moral issue rather than a factual one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This isn't "teach the controversy". When you show a climate change article to a team of experts and what they come back with is, "this plays fast and loose with the facts and doesn't reflect a scientific view of climate change", you have some problems. Stop acting like this is a moral issue rather than a factual one. sorry rear end in a top hat your disingenuous concern trolling won't work here. we grew up with the smoking and evolution debates, we can see drat well whats going on here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:sorry rear end in a top hat your disingenuous concern trolling won't work here. we grew up with the smoking and evolution debates, we can see drat well whats going on here. Look. I'm not going to sit here and listen to some self-righteous dickhead tell me what I "really think". If you have anything relevant to say rather than to accuse me of being a secret climate denialist go ahead and share it, but I don't think you do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think they're becoming increasingly dire. I posted a report here a while back that the Paris agreement was actually sufficient to keep earth below 2 C warming. lol no you posted a book, and a bad one at that quote:This volume presents an Empirical Model of Global Climate developed by the authors and uses that model to show that global warming will likely remain below 2ºC, relative to preindustrial, throughout this century provided: a) both the unconditional and conditional Paris INDC commitments are followed; b) the emission reductions needed to achieve the Paris INDCs are carried forward to 2060 and beyond. spoiler alert, nobody is going to give a drat about the paris accords when the global economic system grinds to a halt
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
you'll see that if you peruse my 300 page pdf it's quite clear that I'm right, hell, I don't even need to make an argument
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Look. I'm not going to sit here and listen to some self-righteous dickhead tell me what I "really think". If you have anything relevant to say rather than to accuse me of being a secret climate denialist go ahead and share it, but I don't think you do. you're not doing it in secret, you're doing it in denial
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol no you posted a book, and a bad one at that That makes no sense. The global economy collapsing would drop carbon emissions drastically, just like what happened in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That makes no sense. The global economy collapsing would drop carbon emissions drastically, just like what happened in 2008. The global economy didn't collapse in 2008 Also you're talking about a near immediate 1-2 degree C increase if we turn off all the aerosal producing industry right now reducing our carbon would be the least of our worries at that point
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
also you're right, emissions did go down during the 2008 financial crisis did it matter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:you'll see that if you peruse my 300 page pdf it's quite clear that I'm right, hell, I don't even need to make an argument I'm not trying to argue the finding of the model are conclusive? You can't draw strong conclusions from a single work. I mentioned it as an example of empirical research not showing an ever-worsening picture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm not trying to argue the finding of the model are conclusive? You can't draw strong conclusions from a single work. I mentioned it as an example of empirical research not showing an ever-worsening picture. If you read the book, or even part of it (like I made the mistake of doing) you'll realize that it's not really saying that. I can see how you might think that if you just read over the title https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-46939-3_4/fulltext.html quote:Global warming projections based on the atmospheric, oceanic general circulation models (GCMs) that participated in Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) (Taylor et al. 2012) indicate that achieving Paris Climate Agreement upper limit of 2 °C warming will require GHG emissions to follow the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6 trajectory (van Vuuren et al. 2011; Rogelj et al. 2016a). So we need to follow the RCP 2.6 trajectory from the IPCC to achieve this 2 degree 'stability'. Maybe you'd like to do some leg work and tell me how that's coming along.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:also you're right, emissions did go down during the 2008 financial crisis That's not a very good graph. If you look at most generalized models you see a significant dip. It's true that all of that dip was recovered as the economy returned to normal, but the growth has actually slowed to a crawl, 0.2% as of 2016, and OECD emissions peaked in 2007 and have fallen in 9/10 years since. I don't say any of this to detract from the seriousness of climate change or the need for mitigation, but to point out what we're actually observing so we can do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's not a very good graph. If you look at most generalized models you see a significant dip. It's true that all of that dip was recovered as the economy returned to normal, but the growth has actually slowed to a crawl, 0.2% as of 2016, and OECD emissions peaked in 2007 and have fallen in 9/10 years since. I don't say any of this to detract from the seriousness of climate change or the need for mitigation, but to point out what we're actually observing so we can do so. Emissions did dip, Co2 concentration in the atmosphere didn't. And it won't. I think what many people fail to understand is that what we choose to do will be irrelevant when the sea level rise we've already locked in starts destroying coastal cities. It will be interesting to see what the next IPCC report will look like if they actually decide to include some of the feedbacks they excluded from the last report.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I saw this article a while ago and I'm not surprised to see it here given that SA tend to lean towards the more (though I hesitate to use this term) alarmist views on climate change. Basically, it has a lot of problems. Climate Feedback did a fact check of the article, and the comments from climate experts range from expressing concerns to outright attacks. Some of the choice quotes include that the article "focuses almost exclusively on worst case scenarios", dismissing its premise as "pure hyperbole", and that "the article contains a number of claims that are factually wrong, and a number of claims that are, to my knowledge, not substantiated by research". You can read the full comments here: This page is quite useful: https://via.hypothes.is/http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html You can read the feedback alongside the original article. Also, NYM posted an annotated version of the article itself, providing sources for its claims, here: https://via.hypothes.is/http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
hey now there new forums software, the second derivative shows a clear inflection this one time, so we should all just calm down and wait another few decades for the scientists to update their models.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:If you read the book, or even part of it (like I made the mistake of doing) you'll realize that it's not really saying that. I can see how you might think that if you just read over the title I'd say RCP 2.6 adherence has problems and seems unlikely, but it's certainly more likely than anything in the NY Mag article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'd say RCP 2.6 adherence has problems and seems unlikely, but it's certainly more likely than anything in the NY Mag article. It's actually not, and that's the problem
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Paris is such bullshit. Canada's attempt to meet the targets is by putting faith in the market response to policy like carbon tax, and I'm sure a lot of other countries are taking the same approach. We are way past the point of allowing the magic of capitalism to figure this one out for us. The world is already HOT. The world is already seeing the effects of climate change. and we are STILL rolling the loving dice. The best part of climate change is that the worst case scenario is a threshold. It only has to be met. Every single minute that we do not act brings us close to the threshold. And how do we know if we haven't already past that point? We Don't. We are just hoping that our models are right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's actually not, and that's the problem All I can say is I don't share that view based on what I've read. You're dropping a lot of hints here but not really explaining why you believe this, and if you can't tell me why there's not much left to say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's not a very good graph. If you look at most generalized models you see a significant dip. It's true that all of that dip was recovered as the economy returned to normal, but the growth has actually slowed to a crawl, 0.2% as of 2016, and OECD emissions peaked in 2007 and have fallen in 9/10 years since. I don't say any of this to detract from the seriousness of climate change or the need for mitigation, but to point out what we're actually observing so we can do so. *it's 2050 and the world is 2.5°C hotter. chaos infects every corner of the earth* Thug Lessons : "See, look here, emissions decreased significantly from 2022-2050. We should be fine"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:*it's 2050 and the world is 2.5°C hotter. chaos infects every corner of the earth* We don't see 2.5 C warming by 2050 except under both highest emissions and highest sensitivity. I don't understand this impulse to insist on the most extreme scenario possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:We don't see 2.5 C warming by 2050 except under both highest emissions and highest sensitivity. I don't understand this impulse to insist on the most extreme scenario possible. *makes wooshing sound* Also, we're currently emitting at worst case scenario levels, and the temperatures are increasing far faster that previously thought.... so uhhh, wouldn't it be impulsive to suggest anything otherwise? Kindest Forums User fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:35
|
|