|
Math isn't subject to belief, unfortunately.
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So literally any action the people of earth could do wouldn't be seen in a positive light by you because we can't undo the sins of the past? Climate change can't be "reversed" even if all carbon emissions stopped today. The 'social problem' needs to be tackled to fix the 'physics problem,' but at heart it is literally a physics problem. A physics problem that has already gone past what scientists say is reasonable. If two decades from now we all get together and start working on it, good feelings and fellowship don't make up for lost time. And we're currently a couple of decades past when we needed to make real changes. Progress towards and cooperation on a solution is good and necessary but at the end of the day there is a scale, and CO2 weighs more than 'institutional alignment.' What we're doing now needed to happen two decades ago, and we haven't faced the reality that we're very, very, very far behind where we need to be at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Yeah, we haven't had a nuclear war over the last 10,000 years, surely now that we have nukes and have gone a few decades without using them on each other we must be good for the next 10,000.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
I agree that the threat of all-out thermonuclear warfare is less than it was but overall humanity's capability to inflict destruction and negative externalities has... even 'vastly increased' is an understatement. Before the worst we could do was either kill a bunch of each other, wipe out some bigger fauna, set a bunch of fires, move species and disease around, whatever. We could be stupid and just fast forward a few hundred years and it's all good. Now we're talking about fast forwarding tens of thousands of years to be good again. Let's say the recent articles about sea level rise are accurate and we get 3 feet this century. How will global shipping work when the ports are underwater and there are these gigantic storms? If we need to figure out a technical solution to do something, anything, to help, would that even be possible when suddenly the world is big again instead of small, where suddenly nobody has enough food and millions upon millions of refugees are fleeing uninhabitable areas? Has what we've seen of the international system's response to these issues thus far (in regards to global warming, EU towards the refugee crisis, etc) given any confidence that these systems will still work in 50 or 100 years when these problems are much, much more serious? That is, can humanity adapt to not regress and lose, well, civilization, to survive the next tens of thousands of years?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Yes, I don't mean to come off as completely hopeless. But not much I have seen over the past couple of decades has increased my hope. Even in a best-case scenario this will be the worst and longest humanitarian disaster in recorded history. It's just easier to say 'well the weather was pretty weird last winter' and feel uncomfortable about it than to imagine the real toll to our children and other life on the planet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
I go more by, how to do the commitments we have made as an international community measure up against what scientists say is necessary? And the science keeps getting clearer and not in a good way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Generally, things like this:quote:The paper published Wednesday does contain some good news. A far more stringent effort to limit emissions of greenhouse gases would stand a fairly good chance of saving West Antarctica from collapse, the scientists found. That aspect of their paper contrasts with other recent studies postulating that a gradual disintegration of West Antarctica may have already become unstoppable. The thing about the problem was that the time to panic was a couple decades ago. By the time we actually do panic enough to kick things into gear we'll already be locked in unless aliens come save us or something. Which I think is about as likely as the UN agreeing to (and actually implementing) strict enough terms to head off global warming, but that's just me being pessimistic. If there was a time for scientists to all gear up in their robot suits and take over the world to save us from ourselves, now is it. Just in case they're waiting for me to say that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
When everything is going to hell, that just makes small acts of humanity more important. Bittersweetness is better than just bitterness. Not that I'm planning on having kids either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
I would think the probability of a state collapsing and losing control over their nuclear weapons and materials is scarier because I don't think we'll be tossing around nukes for no reason (doesn't exactly help with the whole 'warming' thing really) but there are definitely plenty of people who do want to watch it all burn for whatever reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Given how much political and economic structures can be changed by circumstances like war, it's disheartening to think those changes so difficult when the upside of the future we're looking at is 'at least our species won't go extinct.'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
It's fine, we'll all be able to experience it in VR soon from the comfort of air conditioning....
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Were you angry at Al Gore for flying on planes? vvv Very reasonable, thanks Mozi fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Well... I mean, billions will die, so whether it's fair or not isn't really important.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
So it was hotter than 44C, then - his original point being that he knew what 50C felt like, which is valid even if he was in a slightly hotter place than the official reading.
Mozi fucked around with this message at 02:07 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
I realized a bit into it that I had only been thinking in terms of areas becoming completely uninhabitable, and not appreciating the wider context. Thanks for the writeup.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
My sense of how bad things could get is informed by how poorly our international systems are responding the relatively (historically speaking, and looking into the future) minor harbingers of things possibly to come. Even if you don't claim it's climate change behind Syria, for example, it's hard to have faith that the world as whole, that I grew up believing was going to adhere to certain norms and values going forward, is going to be able to respond in a timely and appropriate manner to the much greater stressors and chaos that is already locked in at this point.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
I'm sure this isn't remotely whatever he may have been grasping at, but I do wonder if we do see seas rise significantly within 50-100 years how that could affect global trade and shipping, what with rendering existing large ports unusable.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
"My advice to you, sir, is that the environment can take a few more for the team."
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Yeah but in the past people thought 'oh god the comet is back, we're all gonna die.' Now we have scientists who can predict with exact accuracy when comets will come around. And when say things like 'it's still technically possible to stave off complete collapse,' that is not an optimistic statement.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
You don't need to predict the outcome of chaos to know that it's bad news.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
If what used to be a 100-year weather event becomes a 10- or 5-year event, you don't have to pick and choose which one would have happened without climate change and which ones wouldn't.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Let's all just calm down and enjoy that quiet, growing feeling of dread.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Everybody has their preconceived ideas of where certain arguments are coming from. That the media can't resist asking if any specific event is directly caused by climate change is annoying and misses the forest for the trees, I don't think anybody really disagrees on that point. Just a hazard of arguing on the internet.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
NASA says this year - this one, right now - is probably going to be 1.5C over pre-industrial, which is the Paris 'let's try this' target. It remains to be seen whether countries will actually abide by their commitments made in Paris. The question in my mind is how scientists are feeling about the 2C goal now as compared to in Kyoto given the new models and studies we have now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
There was a paper a bit ago about how an abrupt 6C increase could cause plankton to stop producing oxygen, if I remember right. Aside from that, there's a lot we're still discovering about how our climate works and warming tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle. In Earth's past stuff like bacteria massively shaped the climate - if we turn the seas to acidic algae, I have no idea what else that could affect, but I'd rather not find out. I'm obviously not an expert but it seems to be a case of better safe than sorry. What is making me bummed right now is for all you want to downplay what's happening, we're just seeing the start of migration out of the Middle East, for example. Saying it will be 'unlivable' is one thing, but what is human history going to look like when that happens? The rise of right-wing parties, increases in violence, terrorism, and chaos - we're seeing too much of this already and it's only going to get worse. And right-wing parties generally aren't the most gung-ho about combating climate change, which further reduces the odds of a good result. It won't be the climate alone that does us in - we'll be driven mad and destroy each other first.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Our capacity to inflict permanent harm on ourselves and our planet is vastly greater than before. I'm not a pessimist by nature, honest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
I empathize with your emotion but can't offer much other than 'yup.'
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:So what you're saying is that for a command economy to work we pretty much need a benevolent dictator AI in charge. Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps it would be best to hand over security and political decision-making to some sort of distributed AI network - a 'Sky Network', if you will.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Oh, the worst of it won't come for hundreds of years, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
As an attempt to inject some good news, China's coal emissions may have peaked earlier than planned.quote:China is the world’s biggest polluter and more than tripled its coal burning from 2000 to 2013, emitting billions of tonnes of climate-warming carbon dioxide. But its coal consumption peaked in 2014, much earlier than expected, and then began falling. One never can be sure with data from China but it would certainly be nice to have something positive happening.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
The issue of what to do with the salt is a growing one, as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
I feel as if it's more the end result of the five stages of grief than simply apathy.
Mozi fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Their perspective might be that if they focus on profit a half-century out they won't exist then because their competitors will slaughter them in the meantime.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
If the effects of global warming happened concurrently with the cause, the capitalist system might stand a better chance of dealing with it successfully because when the harm of the effects increases to some point that leads to investment in other, cleaner areas. But because global warming's effects take place long after the emissions are released, and continue to worsen over time, by the time the change happens it will be too late to prevent the effects (whether you define that as keeping below a 2C increase or whatever else.) Already is too late, possibly, or will be soon. That's just my impression, anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Seems like a wasted opportunity to enjoy life while it's still able to be enjoyed. Everybody anybody cares about dies at some point regardless, that's kind of how it works in general.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Not to be all doom and gloom again, but this whole conversation really belongs in the past tense. If these changes, whatever they may be (carbon tax, for one,) had happened 15-20 years ago, there may have been time for a relatively smooth and non-disruptive transition. Right now, I think back to the war effort during WWII at home and the sacrifices and changes necessary there. If the President were to come out and say, I dunno, you can't have butter anymore because of the fight against global warming, nobody would go for it. But when we were fighting an actual war, everybody was on board. And right now (as far as I can tell, not being an expert like some here,) if we actually want to blunt the effects of climate change, we need to treat it like a war and mobilize accordingly and make sacrifices that would be unacceptable in other situations. Take a step back - for any actor in this situation, if the doctor had asked them when they were a baby if they would choose to lead to a mass extinction event or to make a little more for themselves, I'd hope the answer would be clear (given that babies can't understand or whatever.) The collective choice of humanity should be a simple one. We need to reorient ourselves and change how this issue is being presented. And if people still aren't coming on board, tough - you didn't get any butter during WWII regardless of how you felt about it. It's still a bit baffling to me that we're clear-eyed and heading into a mass extinction event and we aren't doing more. People will look back a hundred years from now with rage and a similar bafflement.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
I may have farted earlier this morning, which probably didn't help.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:It beats all the sadbrains poo poo that goes on, so I want to posit the question what would such an effort look like? I mean down to the "no you can't have butter here is some victory butter which is terrible" type stuff. Fighting a war requires different kinds of resources than trying to mitigate climate change, so I'm curious just what the various efforts would boil down to assuming the usual hypothetical benevolent dictator. I think you'd have to assume the hypothetical benevolent God-Emperor of Earth, but it would involve reducing emissions extremely quickly by whatever means necessary. How to deal with the pain, unemployment, disruption, destitution, whatever else - it would probably involve harsh measures. I'm sure one of the PhDs on here would have a better idea of the ideal path forward. My basic point was it's so weird how we can collectively make enormous sacrifices for our country but not for our species (not to mention the other living beings on this planet, who kind of get lost in the shuffle of this whole conversation.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
How is the polar bear's progress on evolving to being an aquatic animal going?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
It's depressing so nobody wants to talk about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 12:31
|
|