Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
lunar detritus
May 6, 2009


Nocturtle posted:

Complete catastrophe is still avoidable, but it cannot be done via capitalism as usual. Something like a WWII style command economy is required. Climate change mitigation is still technically a political problem rather than constrained by physical realities, but the political solution requires changing society's economic structure.

Even if one country or two get all gung-ho about it, how do you get the rest of the world to follow suit? Even the threat of war wouldn't be enough, and if war does happen, how do you get all the economies running again after its end (if they manage to end it fast enough)? All the solutions seem to depend on somewhat healthy economies.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

lunar detritus
May 6, 2009


The Dipshit posted:

US/China/EU are pretty much the big three political blocs that need to change. Resource extraction nations like Saudia Arabia aren't going to be dictating much if nobody wants to buy oil for burning.

I think of those three China is the only one that actually has the political capability to mobilize quick enough to do something (but that doesn't mean they will). The USA has a climate change denier as president for two more years (if not 6).

So... welp?

lunar detritus
May 6, 2009


Mozi posted:

c) if for some reason we halt the releases after starting them we're double screwed so once you start you can't stop, even if it turns out to mess up agriculture across a vast swathe of the globe.

Why not?

lunar detritus
May 6, 2009


https://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-warming-60-greater-error-correction

quote:

The authors of the October 31 paper now say theyve redone their calculations, and although they find the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC they agree that they muffed the range of probability. They can no longer support the earlier statement of a heat increase 60 percent greater than indicated. They now say there is a larger range of probability, between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

It's something. :v:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply