Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

You know, there may be an upside to all this that we haven't considered. In the early Jurassic period, the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere was around 1800 ppm, about four and a half times higher than it is today. If we can push it up that high again, the dinosaurs might come back. :3:

# ¿ Dec 8, 2011 06:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 01:27

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

VideoTapir posted:

I'm sure it'll be a hell of a party in 5 or 10 million years when life has evolved to cope.

I'm not sure much evolution would be necessary, really. Temperature and weather pattern shifts promise to upset existing biomes, but it's not like they're likely to open up fundamentally new niches. It's dangerous for modern civilization and for particular species, not life broadly.

Anyway, I'm kinda surprised stratospheric sulphates haven't gotten mentioned yet. Na�vely, I see it as a pretty attractive prospect for a civilization pathologically averse to meaningful cuts in carbon emissions.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Dec 8, 2011

# ¿ Dec 8, 2011 09:41

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Deleuzionist posted:

This must be very comforting to the yet-to-be methane breathing post-humans.

Hah, are you joking?

Release of methane stored in the Arctic permafrost is dangerous because methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, not because we're going to suddenly have a methane-dominant atmosphere.

It isn't even a toxic gas, if that's what you're thinking. Biologically speaking, we could tolerate huge amounts of it just fine, as long as there was still sufficient oxygen in the air.

Morose Man posted:

First I'd like to address terminology. This phenomenon was called global warming until spin doctor Frank Luntz persuaded George W Bush that "climate change" sounded less threatening, less apocalyptic. The Americans made it a condition of their signing any treaty on global warming that the term climate change be used instead. I really do feel that we should reclaim the language. There is overwhelming scientific evidence (and the wrath of a Something Awful moderator) supporting the view that the planet is getting warmer, let's stop hiding the truth.

This is a bit of a misunderstanding. Both terms, in fact, go pretty far back, and were used extensively in the literature. Luntz did write a memo suggesting that republicans should use 'climate change' to refer to the phenomenon, and independent research does indicate that people respond differently to the terms. But he didn't invent 'climate change,' and didn't force a meaningful change in which term is used, either.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 8, 2011

# ¿ Dec 8, 2011 20:27

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Exactly. The IPCC sure as hell isn't called that because of Frank Luntz.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2011 20:46

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

err posted:

Are there any theorized deadlines that we could see that would make us say, "we done hosed up"?

I recall reading that by 2050 there will be no summer ice in the Arctic. Anything else? When will we start seeing poo poo hit the fan?

Loss of low-lying areas to the advance of the oceans seems like it would be pretty obvious and difficult to ignore.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 02:34

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Ghost of Babyhead posted:

I'm pretty sure we'll be able to rationalise away any number of catastrophes. Even by the time coastal populations have turned into refugees, the refrain will be "woops, mistakes were made, look forward not back".

Given the number of other problems such a situation would presage, looking forward would actually be quite appropriate.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 02:54

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Death Himself posted:

We're already ignoring that. I guess because it's not happening in the US yet.

Where do you mean?

# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 08:12

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Death Himself posted:

Bangladesh is being overtaken by the ocean thanks to rising sea levels caused by climate change.

Are you sure this is something that's actually happened already? A few google searches are finding plenty of warnings about what a one-meter sea level rise could do to Bangladesh, but nothing really indicating that any meaningful amount of land has in fact been overtaken already.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 08:45

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Death Himself posted:

They already lost some fishing communities on islands off the coast and on the coast itself. The higher water level during their normal flood season has caused salt water to reach places it never used to before, turning what were already thin areas of arable land even smaller or entirely useless.

Lost in the sense of "now it's ocean," or lost in the sense of "people moved away because of nasty weather?"

Basically, do you have a link that I could potentially pass along to someone else? Evidence of loss of once-habitable land would be a useful thing to have.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 09:00

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Death Himself posted:

This is a decent article I was able to find quick:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=81079

Thanks!

# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 09:44

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

WAFFLEHOUND posted:

This is just retarded. I can't both know what I'm talking about and not agree with your worldview without being a shill for big oil? I'm a loving igneous petrologist, not an oil guy. I'm just familiar with this area of geology. I've been backing out of this because it's clear people don't want to do anything more than yell at me about how wrong I am, since people were just fine making appeals to authority wrt geologists until they realized I am one and now I'm a shill.

For what it's worth, I've been reading along here, and I'm glad for the informed input. I didn't realize until you started talking about it that the groundwater 'areas' would be widely separated from the locations where fracking was occurring, though in retrospect it seems pretty obvious.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2011 04:52

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Mr Chips posted:

Logistical issues aside, trees in drought/heat stress can become net carbon emitters - this has already been observed in forested areas of mountain ranges on the eastern seaboard of Australia.

Surely that's only in the sense of emitting previously-absorbed carbon, though? Considered over the lifetime of the plant, a tree grown from seed can only be a net carbon sink, unless I've gotten some of the chemistry here badly wrong.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2011 08:45

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Ad Astra posted:

If this doesn't suffice they can make you another map for 2070 with even more red in it. These are the same people who can't reliably predict the weather for the next few days.

Well, no, it's actually different people. You're thinking of meteorologists; climatology is a different field, if one somewhat related.

Nevertheless, I'm rather skeptical myself of a map seemingly so specific, given the broad spread that exists even just in global average temperature predictions.

quote:

For the six SRES marker scenarios, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007:7-8) gave a "best estimate" of global mean temperature increase (2090-2099 relative to the period 1980-1999) that ranged from 1.8 �C to 4.0 �C. Over the same time period, the IPCC gave a "likely" range (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement) for these scenarios was for a global mean temperature increase of between 1.1 and 6.4 �C

66% probability of between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees of warming. Those are some big error bars.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Dec 21, 2011

# ¿ Dec 21, 2011 07:16

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Orbital Sapling posted:

I don't understand this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, have zero expertise in the field and (probably) no real experience in science and yet you still spout bullshit like this as if you have something of merit to contribute.

I can understand a little skepticism, but outright dismissing legitimate research here as irrelevant or propaganda based on feelings like "I don't like the margin of error" or calling it "insulting to my intelligence" is just worthless tripe.

It's not "I don't like the margin of error." It's "the margin of error makes it clear that any predictions are extremely imprecise."

# ¿ Dec 21, 2011 21:52

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Killin_Like_Bronson posted:

Is the problem that we cannot tell precisely the future or that the science does not extend it's claims further than it can to remain honest? Even on the low end of severity and high probability data that we have gathered in the last few decades (measurement of methane release/dying phytoplankton/ocean levels rising), we should be doing things right now to fix them. I applaud the reserved predictions and honest probabilities. The margin of error also leaves room for things to be WORSE.

Yes, yes it does. You may note that this discussion arose in the context of the rainfall map posted upthread - the point was that, given the wide uncertainty that we know exists, taking the map as a useful literal prediction of exactly what areas are going to undergo what climactic shift would be foolhardy. At best, it represents the approximate sort of changes that we might expect in the coming century.

Salt Fish posted:

"Sir, as your doctor I must warn you; unless you undergo treatment we can predict with 66% certainty that you'll have 1-6 years left to live."

The differences between "1 to 6 degrees of warming" and "1 to 6 years to live" should, I imagine, be obvious.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Dec 22, 2011

# ¿ Dec 22, 2011 02:46

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Incidentally, if that 66% certainty range represents a normal bell-curve, it suggests a prediction of 3.75 degrees of warming with a standard deviation of 2.73 degrees; the usual 95% confidence interval is then -1.6 C to 9.1 C.

I suppose at least part of the trouble is that such a range is hard to plan for. 9.1 represents a degree of warming so great that all our efforts at amelioration would be like unto the struggling of a butterfly before the ether, while -1.6 represents...well, far more likely a lack of substantive heating than any actual cooling, obviously. And in the middle of that range, you have a problem that would require increasingly greater resources to combat. But when our most reliable predictions are just that it will be somewhere between "nothing" and "unbridled catastrophe," it's hard to get a good grip on how much sacrifice will be needed.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2011 03:08

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Ignatius M. Meen posted:

Shouldn't the take-home message be that we need to actually do something now to treat the problem? To continue the medical analogy, it's like a patient who doesn't want to get the recommended treatments because their doctor can't give them a precise estimate on how many they'll have to have/how long they'll have to be treated for.

Let's try to avoid argument by analogy. It rarely helps, generally getting bogged down into back and forth about what the situation is really like.

And while it's easy to say that we need to do "something," the trouble is that given the wide spread of possible severities we face, any specific "something" is always going to be simultaneously too much and not enough. Translating 'do something' into action requires a fairly strong sense of how bad the problem is and how much what we're doing is going to help...which, unfortunately, we rather lack at the moment.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2011 03:28

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Squalid posted:

We already have something very similar to your "nuclear tree". It is purely solar powered, requires little to no maintenance and production is a cinch. You can call it the 'solar bio tree,' or more commonly, a 'tree'.

A regular tree offers only short-term CO₂ storage - once it dies and decays/burns, the stored carbon will be re-released into the atmosphere, barring weird plans I've heard people mention about doing things like burying logs in the desert. Artificial trees at least have the potential to yield carbon in a form that can be efficiently sequestered.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 2, 2012

# ¿ Jan 2, 2012 20:17

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Claverjoe posted:

So we make charcoal out of the tree and use it as fertilizer for more trees.

That's fine. The point is, though, that the carbon sequestration ability of trees is pretty much determined by the amount of land area you're willing and able to permanently give over to real/artificial forest.

MeLKoR posted:

On the other hand trees are an extremely low tech, low starting cost, low maintenance , can produce stuff we want besides wood and is an highly distributed way of capturing vast amounts of carbon.

I'm going to straightforward admit that I have no idea what hypothetical products sequestered carbon could be turned into but whatever we would produce literally metric fucktons of it so it might be good to have that distributed production rather than having to move millions of tons of graphite or limestone or whatever from the "factory" to a storage area.

Well, if the capturing method we're using is trees, then the product is going to be wood.

I don't know, I suppose we could try to have a 'wooden revolution,' store carbon by intensive growth of trees to make into everything that can be possibly made out of wood. More wood in houses, et cetera. Flammability could then be a potential problem, of course.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jan 2, 2012

# ¿ Jan 2, 2012 21:21

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Haraksha posted:

I just assumed that an artificial tree would capture massive quantities of CO2.

Ideally, yes. If it doesn't capture much relative to the cost, there's not much point to it.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2012 05:16

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Uranium Phoenix posted:

But yeah, carbon sequestration is not a solution by itself, it's merely another step we can take to un-gently caress ourselves. Society absolutely needs to switch to zero-carbon energy for any good progress to be made.

Well, wait, if we had sufficiently developed carbon sequestration, it seems like it would be a solution by itself. If the problem is that we release too much carbon dioxide by our industrial activities, then recapturing and burying it is just as much an answer as not emitting it in the first place.

Now, whether "sufficiently developed" is actually in the cards, that's another question, and one I can't really answer.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2012 10:39

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

deptstoremook posted:

Your example about TV and movies is a great subconscious example of how deeply we have been socialized to associate quality of life with magnitude of consumption.

If only we could go back to those halcyon days when people didn't need or want possessions to be happy.

...remind me, when was that again?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2012 07:29

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

deptstoremook posted:

I too have trouble imagining a world where anyone can be happy without a constant glut/rut of goods manufactured by slaves.

You seemed to think that people have been 'socialized' to associate quality of life with consumption (recently, presumably?), when People Wanting More Things has kind of been a key component of human behavior since we started using tools. Hoping for this to substantially change is not a viable plan for addressing our ecological problems.

quote:

Also, nice job on advocating for "population control" in the third world:

In other words, it's really up to the third world to stop having children so our mess doesn't get any worse. And, you claim, we can help them have less children. How noble.

Are you trolling? I can hardly imagine how it's possible to read "improved quality of life reduces birth rates" and interpret it as some kind of secret genocidal plot.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2012 09:26

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Ratios and Tendency posted:

This is the 'multi-billion dollar marketing and advertising industries have no effect' fallacy.

One thing I've come to greatly dislike about arguing here (and, honestly, I'm often guilty of it myself), is that everyone responds in, well, quips. Brief, often sarcastic snippets that are meant more to vaguely suggest at an argument or simply to satirize an opponent than to actually present any kind of thesis. It turns discussions into this vague and mushy (and hostile) back and forth of tearing into the last thing said, and half the time no one has or even tries to have a solid notion of what the other person actually thinks.

My position here, the one I have staked out, is that the desire to acquire more material goods is a fairly fundamental human behavioral characteristic, and that while it may be somewhat culturally malleable in the extent to which it drives us, it is not something that can extinguished or strongly suppressed.

Do you, in fact, disagree with this position? And if you do, how would your characterize your understanding of consumption?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2012 09:53

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Claverjoe posted:

I'm pretty sure the bolded part is a big fat no. It was a tubular sock of a CIGS solar cell, which from a pure effectiveness standpoint isn't really worth that much. CIGS are relatively agnostic to orientation anyway (well, compared to indirect band gap silicon solar cells), and the tubular design was a guaranteed under utilization of the whole cell at any given time.

Yeah. It achieved more consistent output by significantly underutilizing the solar cells that were present - if space were more of a limiting factor than cost, it might be a clever solution, but that's not generally the case for solar.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2012 21:05

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Amarkov posted:

Why would anyone do this? It would be an incredible coincidence if all the technologies best suited to fight global warming were also ideal over the short term on which capitalist organizations make decisions. Why would people in a libertarian society voluntarily make economically unfavorable decisions?

The libertarian perspective is that capitalist organizations do not exclusively make decisions based on the short term. Ecological disaster is extremely economically disadvantageous, so our hypothetical rational actor would genuinely want to prevent it.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2012 23:33

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

messagemode1 posted:

But it also looks like there's no real long term "gain" from making a shift to non-exploitative means. It's like a choice between getting $5 now and losing $50 later, and losing $5 now and still losing $35 later anyway, since the forecast is that collectively everyone will be big losers.

But -$40 > -$45? Still better off, and minimizing losses are as much a 'self-interest' thing as maximizing gains.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2012 09:40

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Squalid posted:

I have news for you buddy, somebody already convinced a heckuva lot of people not to procreate

pre:

Nation     Total Fertility Rate       Population Growth Rate

Japan      1.21 children born/woman   -0.278%

Bulgaria   1.42 children born/woman   -0.781%

Russia     1.42 children born/woman   -0.47%

Germany    1.41 children born/woman   -0.208%

Thailand   1.66 children born/woman   0.566%

Canada     1.58 children born/woman   0.794%

All data courtesy the CIA world factbook.

Yes, that 'someone' is personal wealth and economic security, not anyone advocating the One True Way.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2012 09:55

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Squalid posted:

I'm well aware of the relationship between wealth and birth rates, strudel man. I'm merely demonstrating that in many countries a majority are already forgoing large families. As obvious as that sounds there is literally someone arguing that it is impossible a few posts up

Arguing that convincing people not to procreate is impossible-ish, yes. Demonstrating that people naturally procreate less under certain circumstances is in no way a refutation of that.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Feb 10, 2012

# ¿ Feb 10, 2012 00:04

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Dreylad posted:

Although the major polluters are the democracies, in the case of total CO2 emissions. China might be really turning up their emissions but they're not really relevant to current C02 emissions so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

# ¿ Feb 18, 2012 20:36

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

pwnyXpress posted:

He probably meant per capita, not total emissions.

That's be odd, since he wrote "total CO2 emissions." But maybe.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2012 21:11

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Dreylad posted:

I mean for the last 200 years. China hasn't caught up, and wont for awhile.

I don't...know that I really understand what you mean. Are you saying that their cumulative emissions over the past two centuries are substantially less than that of the U.S. over the same period, and that because of that, their current annual emissions are not really a concern?

Because while I suppose I could maybe see an argument from equitability in that, we probably can't afford to let every country get its fair share of cumulative emissions.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2012 09:09

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

sitchensis posted:

And then when I point to public transportation as a solution they tell me about this one time their friend smelled a fart on a bus and all public transportation is HORRIBLE ICKY AND STUPID.

That really happens, does it.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2012 22:13

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

karthun posted:

When people talk about "the science being settled" they talk about measurements like these.

1990 plant zone map
http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Images/USZoneMap.jpg

2012 plant zone map
http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Images/300dpi/All_states_halfzones_title_legend_logos_300dpi.jpg

The average annual minimum temp for much of the midwest has warmed 5 degrees.

Your 2012 map says it's the average over 1976-2005.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2012 02:14

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

karthun posted:

First off its not my map, its the USDA's. Secondly what is your conclusion for the USDA using 30 years of data to make these maps?

...well, mostly that it's not a comparison between 1990 and 2012, which was strongly implied by your post.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2012 02:45

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

a lovely poster posted:

I think his point is that making poo poo up entirely would be a much more effective strategy if actual change was the goal. I don't necessarily agree with that nor do I like the implications of such an idea.

Furthermore, making poo poo up entirely has a large potential to backfire if that fact were made known. Look at how denialists seize upon the slightest whiff of impropriety, and imagine how bad it would be if there were genuine fraud going on.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2012 07:49

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

totalnewbie posted:

and just ended it. Starts at minimizing the effects of CO2 (okay, fine, present your proof) but ends at the fall of the Berlin Wall. I love it.

That's...a confusing comparison. The phrasing suggests that the fall of the Berlin Wall was a threat to freedom, but I can't imagine that's what he means.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2012 02:38

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

TACD posted:

Here's one article I found with a quick Google, there are many many more making the same points out there. http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-03-22/won%92t-innovation-substitution-and-efficiency-keep-us-growing

This is kind of a stupid article.

quote:

With an overall societal EROEI of 3:1, for example, roughly a third of all of that society�s effort would have to be devoted just to obtaining the energy with which to accomplish all the other things that a society must do (such as manufacture products, carry on trade, transport people and goods, provide education, engage in scientific research, and maintain basic infrastructure).

'Energy' does not equate to 'effort.' While an EROEI of 3:1 is pretty bad, it does not mean a third of all our work would go to procuring the fuel, any more it currently requires 10% of all our work for, what is it now, a 10:1 EROEI?

quote:

As we saw in Chapter 3, in our discussion of the global supply of minerals, when the quality of an ore drops the amount of energy required to extract the resource rises. All over the world mining companies are reporting declining ore quality. So in many if not most cases it is no longer possible to substitute a rare, depleting resource with a more abundant, cheaper resource; instead, the available substitutes are themselves already rare and depleting.

Equating the quality of a fuel source with the quality of ore.

quote:

We will be doing a lot of substituting as the resources we currently rely on deplete. In fact, materials substitution is becoming a primary focus of research and development in many industries. But in the most important cases (including oil), the substitutes will probably be inferior in terms of economic performance, and therefore will not support economic growth.

Bizarre, non sequitur conclusion. The substitutes for oil are not as potent, therefore they will not support economic growth. (What, at all? Economic growth just stops?)

# ¿ Apr 4, 2012 19:16

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

Nice, 'graph'. I especially like the units given, really helps your point!

The units are clearly indicated as centimeters of sea level rise. :confused:

Corrupt Politician posted:

I've heard the 2 degrees figure before, but is there any real basis for it, or is it just a guess? I thought we really didn't understand the possible feedback loops well enough to know where the threshold is.

We don't have firm answers, and that, unfortunately, is part of the problem. If we could pin down precisely how much it would help us to cut emissions in half, there's at least a chance that it could be done - as long as everything is uncertainty and divergent models, people are unwilling to commit to the pain of change.

Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Apr 15, 2012

# ¿ Apr 15, 2012 09:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 01:27

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

It was more the top 60% I was worried about .

Pretty sure it's still centimeters of sea level rise!

# ¿ Apr 15, 2012 19:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

«‹›4 »