|
Forever_Peace posted:Sorry, I didn't mean to sound confrontational. Perhaps I'm not clear on what you meant. Alright, I get you. I'm not saying that though, because you're right, a personal response as a solution to climate change will never be as effective as national/international policy. What I am saying - especially the people coming into this thread with a feeling of hopelessness and despair - is that it's okay to have personal goals and preparing for the future yourself, in terms of your own effort to adapt to climate change. Because we are locked in for certain effects for sure. I want to give people something to do if they are feeling hopeless, and make sure they know they have years to adapt their own personal circumstances, so they don't need to panic and go all sadbrains. At the same time, I think people could use that interest in groups of likeminded people (and I'm not talking about hippie communes here, pragmatic living remember?) to generate a base of enviro-friendly political opinion that can get local communities that eventually add up to big numbers concerned and active about climate change. Because right now, even with all the warning signs, people are ignoring the gently caress out of the problem. If a large portion of your community starts working together on these kinds of things, it brings it down to a local "oh-poo poo-people-are-doing-things-this-is-actually-real" level. So it's a win-win, as I see it. Peace of mind from personal adaptation coupled with renewed energy for talking to people and working with people in terms of combatting climate change. Isolationism would be the exact opposite of this, in fact. What I don't know, is A: much about it at all, B: how to get a community engaged in sustainable living/robust local communities C: the hows of the best ways to prepare for a future with more extreme weather and less food security while we shift public opinion towards a mitigation industry. And I figure, what's the worst that can happen if green living becomes a trend? Maybe it'll start changing attituted making pollution and consumerism socially unacceptable in the broad sense, which you have to admit would go a long way towards helping. Anyway, it's a positive possibility to think about for all the doomsayers and the people who are terrified of climate change. Certainly more productive than fear paralysis.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Personal survivalist and local green action are different. You can put in effort here to intentionally blur lines, and to an extent it'll be valid, but the difference between sincerely asking how to defend a fallout shelter and grow an algae farm ought to be clear. Don't pretend your first post on this was as flowery on community action as your second post would have us believe. It was confrontational They sure are, super glad I specified that I was not talking about prepper stuff or survivalism in my very first post. You call it blurring the lines, I call it "all of the above". At this point, it's reasonable to suggest people think about sustainable living which is also low-resource, low-impact food secure living. We are allowed to answer the question "what is to be done" with "do for yourself and get involved locally" seeing as no gigantic anti-climate change movement seems to be spawing on the national/international level for people to jump on. gently caress off with this bullshit. I know full well it's all going to poo poo, and sooner than we thought. Instead of wallowing in despair, maybe people would like to read about stuff other people are doing to live sustainably? Maybe, we can loving do whatever the gently caress we want to prepare for what's very likely to be the future at the same time as we get involved with environmental activism, voting green and changing minds however we can? Why can't this go hand in hand, why does this have to be either/or with you? Do we need a different thread called "Climate Change: What is to be Done by you personally?" for this? Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Xeom posted:Rime those were a lot of words to essentially say FYGM. I've never expected retirement. I've known poo poo was hosed. It just hit me yesterday that I'll watch my girlfriend die, so I was dumb and made a post crying about it on the internet. Sucks for me. Dude. Chill. Get some help for sadbrains. Absolutely anything can happen between now and then, and neither you nor your girlfriend were - as previously mentioned itt to all having panic attacks - immortal before knowing about climate change or you posting. You live in the western world. You will be better off than almost everyone else, even if the worst predictions come true - which we don't know that they will. Nobody who has ever seen a doctor has survived. Doctors have a 0% survival rate for their patients. It's all temporary. Enjoy life while you can, because it's going to be better for you and your girlfriend than most of the rest of the world. Make some personal plans, some plan b type stuff. Whatever gets you active and gives you peace of mind. Find local and international groups working for the climate. Participate. Donate. There's a lot of stuff you can do and a lot of it can really help. So help us help you help yourself, and stop with the panicky bullshit. This isn't happening tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:That's right, the Atlantic Conveyer could shut down. England is north of Green Bay, it could suddenly feel like it if the Atlantic didn't bring warm water so far north. Yeah, but surely that's still going to be happening over a significant amount of time? I mean, we're talking next century at the minimum, regardless of the inevitability of it. But yeah, northern europe is at the same latitude as most of Siberia, which means it might just be going to suuuuuck for the Nordic countries at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Hollande was just talking at COP. The current target is carbon neutral by 2050 right? Is this actually enough to prevent more than 2 degrees Celsius warming or whatever the current red line is supposed to be? Well, a pretty big problem is that we really don't know exactly where that red line will be. It's probably more of a red smear anyway, because things do get progressively and maybe exponentially worse the warmer it gets in a short amount of time. I mean, humanity is already close to being an extinction level event, the anthropocene is real. We're also the only intelligent mass-extinction event (that we know of), which lends even more uniqueness to the situation. We just don't know enough yet. Ask in 2050.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Well with at least the people interviewed, they were all like - "no! we dont want to be retrained in something else, we don't want to work with computers, we just want our deadly coal shucking jobs back!!". I don't really have much sympathy for people who can't even be bothered to attempt to change with the times. Do they need your sympathy? Because they've made it pretty clear that they still have enough power to make their voices heard. Power enough that they might not need your sympathy. At least they probably think so.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:The government should tax carbon emissions and then pay those idiots to put the mountains back where they found them. It's a joke, but you're not far off. Industrialist and other robber baron capitalists who have made their money from carbon emitting industry have avoided paying for the damage they have caused. I mean, the taxes they pay and the compensations they've been forced at the point of a gavel to pay don't even come close to the monetary worth of the sheer damage they have done to people's lives, and will do in the future. They never paid the actual cost of that pollution, and so that money ought to be taken back and spent reversing as much harm as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I reckon Scandinavia will be fine, particularly Norway. Got heaps of dams and hydro power and precip is projected to increase so they have water security. They have the resources to become completely food independent, if they arent already. Not that it matters, but you're wrong on a couple of things here. Firstly, Norway can't really expand their hydroelectric capacity much at this point. There's been huge developments on this since the sixties, and even Norway is running out of rivers and lakes to dam. Now, this shouldn't be a problem normally, but strong neoliberalist and private interest forces are working towards piping that electrical capacity towards Europe, particularly Germany, which as we all know decided to de-nuclearize. The idea being that private companies (that for some reason are being allowed to profit from all this renewable stuff even if it is or ought to be state-owned) can sell power high to mainland Europe during high consumption periods, and buy it back and refill magazines with pumps for cheap during low consumption periods. A good idea from a financial standpoint, terrible for the people of Norway who are going to be paying significantly more for power going forwards. Which leads to seeking alternatives, like biofuel and fossil fuel to heat homes during the (still) very cold norwegian winter. And if magazines are low, costs rise more, and Norway will have to utilize their natural gas power plants. Which means more emissions. The capitalists have done it again, folks. Norway is also not food independent, but can at best support 50% of its population with its current production. This is not likely to increase any time soon, because of later times de-prioritizing farming and food production as a low-status low-income profession, and having to compete with international trade. Cheaply available food is killing food production in Norway, and at this point some farmers are growing christmas trees for sale because it's just more profitable than growing grain or raising cattle. Norway has had massive starvation as recently as last century, and will have that again, particularly if the thermohaline circulation is disrupted with worsening growing conditions and potentially massive loss of fish in the norwegian sea. Also, Norway does not have a moat but a mainland Europe highway/railway connection through Sweden/Denmark that can't (by treaty) be closed or even subjected to border controls (even if those are being re-implemented in violation of the Schengen-treaty at the moment, nobody knows where that's going). Sweden might do fine though. They have nuclear power, lots of room for proper agriculture and a milder climate less dependent on the thermohaline circulation. Also, swedish food is great! E: Point being, nowhere is particularly safe or great. The system of the earth is gigantic and utterly complex, and we don't know what's going to happen. Predicting the future is very difficult at the best of times, but it's even harder when you don't have all the information beforehand. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:For all intents and purposes, Norway is 100% hydro, this isn't going to change. And their hydro power is projected to increase, not because of more dams, but because of more rain there. I don't know how they currently heat their homes in Norway but it would be trivial for them to do it with electricity. Whatever agreements they have with the rest of Europe, I seriously doubt they would choose to go without electricity while exporting to Europe. 95,6% (highest year on record from what I can find) with the rest made up of solar and wind. I wouldn't really count on altered weather patterns (as much as you can rely on projected weather patterns decades in advance in specific geographic locations) to create more hydroelectric power, because Norway already gets its fair share of rain (particularly the western part) and is producing at near capacity. They need to expand capacity if they are going to produce a higher yearly amount. Trouble with that is, Norway is currently increasing its electricity consumption by between 2,5 and 3% yearly. And since 2000, big hydroelectric developments have been put on freeze due to conservation efforts (contrary to common belief, dams take up a lot of space and fucks up the local environment quite effectively). It's a big question whether that's likely to change. There's no expanding east anyway, because that part actually gets very litte rain; the mountains stop a lot of moisture. As for food independence, there's no political will for that outside the ostensible farmer's party, and most people living in Norway couldn't give less of a poo poo about food security. Food has been readily available for two generations with little in the way of disruption of supply (disregarding the infamous butter crisis of 2011 that CNN did a piece on  ) and this issue isn't even on the radar for most people. Any sudden change, and Norway is very vulnerable. Greenhouses take time, and also take up precious electricity and space, and construction in Norway is as hyper-regulated as in the rest of Scandinavia: not a quick affair.Norway's border with Sweden is impossible to police. It's over a thousand miles long, and there's another 600 miles in addition to that bordering Finland and Russia. The only real border control is the Russian border, the rest is a swiss cheese. The country will be utterly unable to stop illegal immigration if that gets bad enough. I guess geographical remoteness might help, but I'll guess we'll find out regardless. But yeah, I'd put my money on Sweden being better than Norway, and Norway being not much better than mainland Europe. Which, you know, might be fine?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Captain Scandinaiva posted:Cool swedish stuff That is goddamned awesome. Do you know where this would be pretty good and cool? Every major city in Norway where a car-free city centre has been proposed. The big problem so far has been transportation of goods (not so much people, public transport is obviously exempt). It would probably prompt some people to get rid of cars, as well. In my dream world, this combined with free public transportation would probably have a very significant effect on emissions and be great social tool as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Even if deftly handled, that's a set back. Maybe you shouldn't have voted for Trump then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:hey cool if we don't measure it climate change can't possibly happen right In a post-factual society, does it really matter
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:It's quantum. Are you certain?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:As long as we don't measure it we will have a Schrödinger's arctic where it's both hot and cold at the same time. But you had to think about your answer, which measured your thoughts, and so altered the outcome ~
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
pidan posted:If all human CO2 emissions ended from one minute to the next, temperatures would plummet. The ecosystem is by now set up to absorb some portion of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and without them it would suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere than is needed to maintain the current temperature. If by doing that we avoid activating runaway climate change through loving up the oceans, siberia exploding into a giant fart and our arctic and antarctic AC going on the fritz. But yeah, if we could phase out fossil fuels in the next 30 or so years, that would help a hell of a lot. Doubt India, Indonesia, China or most of Africa and South America would be too keen on that though. Just getting rid of coal as a starter would have just a monumental impact. Cannot be overstated how important that would be. shrike82 posted:Is it possible that another great economic recession like the GFC sparked by Trump might help restrain emissions? That might be a silver lining. The only thing positive about Trump is that he only gets to do damage for 8 years max, and after that people will hopefully be angry enough (and the progressives have gotten their poo poo together enough) that dems flood congress and get POTUS. Then we
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
RedneckwithGuns posted:Is there any even unreasonable way this could be fixed without making us unable to grow the amount of food we would need? How would those large indoor hydroponic setups that are springing up in certain places help to fix it? Actually, automated hydroponics and aquaponics as well as inland fishery tech has reached a level of insane efficiency per m2, making it an absolute possibility to grow huge amounts and varieties of non-local foods as well as fish (you need a protein source regardless). The issue on this isn't ability, because that we have, but cost effectiveness. It's a lot more expensive to do this than simply importing poo poo, and until we start doing it on a massive scale or transportation costs go through the roof, it's not a realistic endeavour. It also requires a lot of fresh water and electricity, which may both be in short supply for some nations going forward. But yeah, and integrated skyscraper hydro/aquaponics can solve local food shortages. It's just nobody is building them now, and crops can fail massively one year to the next while these types of projects can take decades. So, not out of the woods yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:I doubt inland fish pens are that efficient at generating protein, I bet they like most meat farming is just an inefficient conversion of vegetable protein into animalic protein, or even worse, a conversion of cheap bycatch from trawling. Well yes, as far as I know the technology requires/assumes significant insect/larvae farming for feed, and presumably the insect farming comes from mostly waste or low-grade/unusable vegetable matter. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about this, because I don't, and I'm certainly not going to pretend this is easy or will even be done, but it does exist as a potential alternative to mass monoculture fossil-fuel driven farming.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:At least in my area the post-glacial rebound is still gaining land from sea, so I should be safe from drowning for a while. Wait, so Scandinavia exempting Denmark will be relatively fine? That can't be right, no way is the land rising that quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:This ice level may be just a brief anomaly because of El Nino, but we can expect that many of Earth's systems have tipping points they'll reach where they will suddenly and drastically change. The problem is that these systems are extremely complicated, and predicting when a tipping point will occur is difficult. That's really a key point. We can't predict when we reach a watershed moment and feedback processes start a runaway global warming effect, at least not with the kind of accuracy that gives us properly predictive knowledge as opposed to predictive assumption. That's the danger of all this: The scientists are really calculating risk without having a properly predicitve model to work from, because the system is too huge, too complex and too full of unknowns. There's a real possibility the science on global warming is wrong and the situation is much more dire than the models predict. The somewhat reacting governments are working from those assumptions. That is a real danger and it will only get worse as climate science is defunded.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Well you could do a hydroponic greenhouse setup with a fish>plants>fish setup as everything around you turns to a barren wasteland. Still requires clean water though It's a cool way to get protein from what's basically very area-efficient farming. Making it robust and sustainable may be expensive and challenging, though. Luckily you can now read and learn about this on the internet from folks who are into this stuff, and have better chances than anyone previously at making something like that work. Pretty cool, if you think about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Do you have a source for ocean acidification killing all fish? What do fish eat?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I don't know, you're using a word that's used to describe at least 5 different classes in the animal kingdom. The point being that while fish don't die from rapid acidification of oceans, the vast ecosystem supporting fish populations and the fish population the fish population supports is absolutely unequivocally and certainly vulnerable to acidification. If you take out a more or less vital part of the ecosystem, say jellyfish or every calcifying species such as zooplankton or invertebrates with an exoskeleton/shell, that ecosystem collapses. It's how ecosystems work. Or rather fail. But hell, it also directly kills fish populations. Is your point that we can disregard this danger due to the semantics of taxonomy? Because that is something that is actually naive, in the precise meaning of the word.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I get that ocean that most species of fish can't live in water at 2100-projected pH levels. I also get that tests on things like coccolithophores show that some varieties can adapt to acidification if allowed to breed over increasingly acidic waters over longer durations (like 12 months). Is the same true for fish? What rates of change can they adapt to? Are there some species that are more resilient to changes in pH than others? Oh, I get that, and I absolutely hope that the ocean ecosystem as a whole won't experience a cascade failure from acidifcation, warming, altered/reduced thermohaline circulation and increasing levels of pollution combined with significant overfishing from starving human populations. But from what we know today, we had better plan for a world where the fish are gone or reduced to insignificant numbers and hope to be wrong, than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Good news! Well, "news". Trump says whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear. Actions, not words, signify a terrible time for the american global warming struggle with Trump as the president. My worry about that rear end in a top hat is that he's either the biggest most insincere liar the US has ever produced (which is staggering considering some of your politicians), or he's the most mercurial (and thus easily manipulated and mislead) president you've had in modern times. Neither of which give me any sort of comfort.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:'Tens of billions of dollars' is really not the amount of money people seem to think it is. The US government budget is about 4 trillion dollars. Per year. Well, sure, but that's not money that can just be spent combatting climate change, the budget (which runs a deficit) goes towards paying other necessary things. I agree that tens of billions of dollars could maybe pay for one of those things on a global scale, but that sort of begs the question of "are we limited to tens of billions of dollars" in this Robin Hood fantasy of seperating the rich from their money or some sort of philantropic renaissance? Obviously not, we're talking trillions. I have been harping on this previously, but the oligarchic tendencies of the global economy, laissez faire capitalism etc. cannot contribute to combatting global warming. Sooner or later, a receding global economy will have to come to terms with the fact that the sustainable, regenerative economic world requires us to change our preconceived notions of consumerism, mass production and economic/industrial growth and non-regulated markets and organisations into viewing these things a medieval, antedeluvian concepts devoid of any kind of sense of responsibility. Currently, polluting is happening without the pollutor paying the actual cost of it. The entire system is a gigantic false economy that billions of people, mostly in the third world, will be paying for in very real and increasing consequences very soon. Making the billionaires carry the costs of necessary changes first is equitable, socially responsible and very just in my opinion. But then there's the problem of making that a practical reality. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
frytechnician posted:Yeah, it's over. Yeah, see? Actions and not words. Time to buy some land and guns.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:That's actually possible? Very. It's happened before. Thermohaline disruption could end the gulf stream, which means northern europe turns into siberia/alaska. Better bundle up. Here's a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:See, here's where I agree with you (mostly). The root of the problem is the way that society is structured around capitalist ideas of production, consumption, and trade. Opposing that would provide more space, theoretically speaking, to address climate issues in a more direct manner. But I disagree that it's not possible to convince people of the necessity of that framework. Most people dislike the way that the economy works, that it rewards a few and punishes the rest, and would stand against it if given the opportunity. The enemy is right there. For you to continually tout geoengineering or any other moonshot tech as the answer is to do the work of the opposition for them, by rationalizing the mindset that humanity can gently caress up, infinitely, and never suffer the consequences, because someone, somehow, will save us and therefore the status quo can go unchanged. I agree with you here, in principle. But in practical reality, this: ChairMaster posted:There's no question that it's a political problem, it's just an insurmountable one. There's more to it than politics for sure, but when you mix the interests of the people who's decisions actually matter with the attitude of the general public about the way they live their lives you get an unsolvable problem. You can't get people to consume less in our current society, it's consumer driven capitalism to the extreme, it cannot be stopped without costing the most powerful people in the world so much money that they would never allow it in the first place. is also true. There is an enemy, we know the solution, the fight is against consumerist capitalism and short-sighted economic planning, as well as a political system that does not represent the people's best interest and does not react appropriately to the biggest issue of our time. There's a war there to be fought to convince Trump voters where at all possible, there's a war to be fought to provide good candidates for solidarity og progressive policies, there's a war to be fought against consumerism. All of this can be fought, all of these problems can be overcome, but the issue isn't ability. Given enough time, all of this could be possible, but crux of it is: we do not have that time. Slow reform produced (historically) the most consistent results, but we don't have time for that when action needs to be taken soon. Now, in fact. Quick revolution doesn't happen unless there's a very significant stressor on the population, famine, plague, authoritarian demagoguery, and by definition the problem of global warming is it's slow but steady impact from factors happening today. It is uniquely a challenge that we are not equipped to handle. I'd love to be wrong about this though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:Bold whole article. Terrifying. Wow. You're not loving kidding. Jesus, it's obvious when it's pointed out, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You will learn a lot through a hands-on approach. As someone who has helped set up emergency makeshift levees, distributed rations and looked for people trapped in flooded areas, I can tell you that dealing with that poo poo while it's not yet happening to you is easier to cope with and helps you prepare for and deal with personal emergencies. Getting involved enough also gives you a hotline to the right people to get in touch with. This is such a quality post and exactly the kind of thing that should be encouraged heavily itt and elsewhere. Everyone can be useful, everyone can help in some way and disaster preparedness is both great for you personally and the people you care about. I'm sure it will bring some peace of mind to everyone overly angsting over climate change. We're going into a period of increasing natural disasters, and being prepared is going to be incredibly helpful and will minimize loss of life in disaster scenarios. The increased awareness from people getting serious about disaster relief will also be a very visible and highly recognizable thing for everyone on the fence politically: "Hey there's more natural disasters now and a lot of people are getting organized to help, this makes it abundantly clear that global warming and climate change is a thing because now a large group of people are doing more than talking about it". Or something like that. I hope. Possibly stupid question, but with the whole albedo thing: Could (in a perfect world) mandating painting most man-made structures/vehicles white be helpful in incresing the relative albedo of the planet, given the huge extent of human settlement? I mean, the total amount of man-made horizontal surface are must be utterly staggering at this point. Even a portion of it being high albedo might make a measurable impact, but I don't know if it would be worth the resource investment required.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I was exaggerating for effect. Absolutely. Also, the no child policy bullshit is the worst derail. It's worse than tedious and probably the most unrealistic and ineffective way to combat climate change. Just give it a rest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Well, whatever method is ultimately chosen (and you know the capitalist-industrialists are going to see to it that a method of carbon sequestration is chosen and implemented as a part of industrial production, just so they can claim current industry and consumer capitalism can and should continue), I find it very likely that the most significant technology for that process will be automation. I'm not a believer in scifi technical dreams, but automation is a very powerful tool when applied correctly. A completely automated carbon sequestration process on a massive is the only form of process I'm willing to believe will be effective in actually sequestering carbon in any significant amount. I am also dead certain that it won't be enough without also stopping emissions elsewhere, which large-scale automation probably isn't such a great thing for.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
That viewpoint is ridiculous and naive, and is really only a perspective to hold if you accept the obliteration of science, advanced culture and technological civilization, because it's us, humanity, that will suffer from the rapid changes. Biomes will eventually adapt to new conditions, but not without an extinction level event which we are creating. Just the recovery process alone is measured in milennia. "Maybe it'll all work out and global warming will make the earth more hospitable? I mean, warmer weather is nice, right?" - an abject moron. This is on par with claiming global warming isn't real because snow exists. We're in actual real life likely to cause a runaway warming effect, shutting down the thermohaline cirulation of the oceans, suffer an anoxic ocean event that kills 99.99% of all life on the planet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The human race wasn't really doomed to death at the same time as the planet, we could have advanced enough that evacuation of the solar system could become a real option at some point in the distant future (maybe warp fields or wormholes or some poo poo could have panned out, or maybe someone builds a flying subluminal-speed city-ship), but honestly anyone who thinks that humanity is getting off this chunk of dirt and water and metal and going to live anywhere else for more than a few months is probably fooling themselves at this point. Actually, we still potentially can. We can model and predict the effects of climate change, but mankinds adaptation to it and future industrial and technological humanity we'd be fools to pretend we can know very much about. We couldn't predict what 2016 would look like in 1966, and we don't know what 2066 is going to look like now (except, you know, more ocean and storms and horrible conditions in the third world). Something to keep in mind, and I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, whatever nation/company/rich dude who is first out of the gravity well in a permanent way (manufacture, industry etc in space) is going to be absolutely massively rich and powerful. Not only for the things a space-based economy can provide in raw materials and manufacture for global delivery, but also because it's very hard to project legal or actual power on someone who is self-sufficiently space based. The technology isn't there yet, but with advances in automation, medicine and the stuff they are developing on the ISS, it's not inconceivable within our lifetimes. There are probably some people with power and money who are incredibly motivated to make this happen. As for storing dead trees, I kind of feel like that's something that could possibly be done with access to enough cheap power (I'm thinking mainly electrical). Cutting down tress and replanting is a somewhat long-term carbon sequestration plan, but it relies on natural processes (plant growth) which requires minimal direct input of resources (don't need electricity or machines, just dudes planting), and the sequestration process in itself requires forestry machines (which is technology we have and can be electric or biofuel-driven), and it would also be a gigantic jobs program for out of work low education people. As for storage itself, that needs some research and feasability study, but I can think of several options right off the top of my head. Compared to sequestration into carbon nanotubes or carbon bricks or diamonds or anything else that needs complex machinery and lots of power, it's a pretty simple operation. I wouldn't dismiss it as a pie-in-the-sky idea, though the challenge of actually getting to work on it is the same political monster that makes progress towards solutions so glacial.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Just from what I've seen earlier in the thread, it would change precipitation patterns in a way that would specifically create massive droughts in China. Or maybe it was massive rainfall? Pretty sure it was droughts. It's droughts. And yes, China stands to gain incredibly from taking point on mitigating climate change, and part of that reason is that China is horrendously, stupidly polluted at the moment: https://watchers.news/2017/01/02/red-air-pollution-alert-china-january-2017/ You can say a lot about the chinese people and the state controlled media, but there's no spin to put on the air literally killing you and your children in a highly visible and painful way. China may see honest to goodness air quality riots unless they get their poo poo together.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
I mean loving look at this: https://www.instagram.com/p/BOv2Bd4jxKW/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:the ocean dying will put higher pressure on food costs. The ocean dying will kill every single one of us. It's a worst case scenario, literal 99% extinction event. Lucky for us it's at the extreme end of absolutely no mitigation and in fact vastly increased emissions. It's the last domino and not the first.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Most of the planet's oxygen is generated by oceanic bacteria. Ocean dies, everything asphyxiates. On a massive timescale, sure. It's more that we need everything the ocean produces, including its ability to sequester carbon dioxide. Conspiratiorist posted:But oxygen depletion of the atmosphere below what's survivable by plants and animals would take centuries if not millenia even without the ocean's contribution. On the other hand, a massive ocean-wide anoxic event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event) could conceivably happen as a worst case scenario within a few hundred years. And probably on an unprecedented scale, given the multiple stressors on ocean life and biology humans provide, abundant organic material for breakdown... yeah. Better learn to breathe hydrogen sulphate gas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Sphairon posted:Your Wiki article seems to suggest these anoxic events are associated with (for our standards) very high CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by methane releases: In an RCP 8,5 scenario (or worse), which is what I understand we're on track for due to vastly too optimistic models? Uhhh... My hopes and dreams?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is, alas, nearsighted. Say what? Is that common? I honestly don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 19:06
|
|