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

Nowa: Mar 20, 2006; ...a gulliver of dreams.

Arkane posted:

You should be able to find all of them via Google searches. I'll do a brief recap, though.

Is there any truth to the theory that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will actually INCREASE the rate at which temperature is increasing? (Simply due to the soot and other particles in the air that are actually reflecting the sun's heat.)

# ? Feb 23, 2012 02:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 06:00

LuckySevens: Feb 16, 2004; fear not failure, fear only the limitations of our dreams

Nowa posted:

Is there any truth to the theory that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will actually INCREASE the rate at which temperature is increasing? (Simply due to the soot and other particles in the air that are actually reflecting the sun's heat.)

They brought this up as a reason to explain the difference between different observations vs different models, as another variable added. It's effect is only on the numbers at a small level, but would not adversely effect the hypothesis (if it even would, there's many different models and just because there's a chance of this doesn't mean it's even part of a standard).

# ? Feb 23, 2012 02:11

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

duck monster posted:

Make that celcius and it drat near feels like that in perth. Well not quite, but you get the drift..

So hot My sleep patterns have been horrible.

Yeah but on the other hand you're not freezing your rear end off.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 02:17

pwnyXpress: Mar 28, 2007

Nowa posted:

Is there any truth to the theory that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will actually INCREASE the rate at which temperature is increasing? (Simply due to the soot and other particles in the air that are actually reflecting the sun's heat.)

Yes. This has applications in things like "clean coal." You see, they leave all the invisible garbage in it (the stuff that is actually greenhouse gases), and take out the "gross" stuff you can see and filter easily, like soot and aerosols. The problem is that the latter, though nasty in your lungs, reflects certain wavelengths of the sun's radiation from even reaching us here on the surface when it is in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases do not reflect the sun's radiation from entering, but do prevent the longwave radiation emitted from the heated Earth from escaping into space (this is due to the shape of the molecules involved). As a result you have a situation with more of the sun's radiation reaching the surface, but no more of it escaping into space than previously.

EDIT: This is called the "aerosol effect" and actually contributed to a temporary global-cooling period around WWII due to the large-scale switch to burning oil, which releases a lot more aerosols.

pwnyXpress fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Feb 23, 2012

# ? Feb 23, 2012 05:39

say no to scurvy: Nov 29, 2008; It is always Scurvy Prevention Week.

If it was legal to litter if your trash is made 100% out of materials originating within 100 miles, people might actually shift their habits. How do we appeal to laziness?
(a bit off topic, but I figured this would be the most relevant thread for this.)

# ? Feb 23, 2012 10:17

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

say no to scurvy posted:

If it was legal to litter if your trash is made 100% out of materials originating within 100 miles, people might actually shift their habits. How do we appeal to laziness?
(a bit off topic, but I figured this would be the most relevant thread for this.)

Prepared food cannot be shipped more than 50 miles from place of manufacturing to point of sale.

# ? Feb 23, 2012 10:55

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

say no to scurvy posted:

If it was legal to litter if your trash is made 100% out of materials originating within 100 miles, people might actually shift their habits. How do we appeal to laziness?
(a bit off topic, but I figured this would be the most relevant thread for this.)

A local council in Australia recently banned the use of non-degradable bags at supermarkets. Obviously it's not a fantastic solution since it'll still take time for the bag to degrade and there's plenty of other non-degradable plastics out there, but it's leagues better than continually contributing to the huge rubbish dump of plastic already out in the ocean.

It's pretty unlikely anybody is on the level of evil as the villains in Captain Planet and litters while cackling evilly, saying 'haha, take that, environment!'. That said, encouraging/legislating for the use of bioplastics that degrade by themselves would reduce any further additions to the problem.

The Entire Universe posted:

Prepared food cannot be shipped more than 50 miles from place of manufacturing to point of sale.

This would probably cause more problems than it would solve. Most businesses would decide it's more trouble than its worth and just refuse to service areas too far away (or find themselves with a glut of tinned beans or whatever they can't sell).
Comedy alternative: The tinkers will become an actual thing again, travelling between various food production areas and trading exotic prepared goods wherever they stop.

froglet fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Feb 23, 2012

# ? Feb 23, 2012 11:57

coolskillrex remix: Jan 1, 2007; gorsh

duck monster posted:

Well, with the leaker now coming forward, I think we can kick back and see what comes of it. Maybe it was forged, but even with that *slightly* better article you linked which at least attempts to put an argument behind why the memo might not be true, I still don't quite understand why someone would do it if it contains no new allegations.

But maybe we'll know soon enough.

Whether or not that document is fake is irrelevant. Really its just a distraction to the entire topic, and that atlantic writer who has had a husband with a year long "fellowship" at the heartland institute knows this. Its one big diversion, and its worked.

She confirmed that basically the forged pdf is just a collection of facts from other pdfs... and yes it is, but the actual pdf does an even better job of exposing their agenda than the "Strategy" .pdf
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf

quote:

B. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Heartland sponsors the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an
international network of scientists who write and speak out on climate change. Heartland pays a
team of scientists approximately $300,000 a year to work on a series of editions of Climate
Change Reconsidered, the most comprehensive and authoritative rebuttal of the United Nations�
IPCC reports. Another $88,000 is earmarked for Heartland staff, incremental expenses, and
overhead for editing, expense reimbursement for the authors, and marketing.
NIPCC is currently funded by two gifts a year from two foundations, both of them requesting
anonymity. In 2012 we plan to solicit gifts from other donors to add to what these two donors are
giving in order to cover more of our fixed costs for promoting the first two Climate Change
Reconsidered volumes and writing and editing the volume scheduled for release in 2013. We
hope to raise $200,000 in 2012.

Hmm, 30 scientists that are going to be cherry picked for having dissenting opinions, i wonder how many will be climate scientists, let alone have peer reviewed papers on climate change :allears:

quote:

H. Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Schools
Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global
warming that isn�t alarmist or overtly political. Heartland has tried to make material available to
teachers, but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the
alarmist perspective. Moreover, material for classroom use must be carefully written to meet
curriculum guidelines, and the amount of time teachers have for supplemental material is
steadily shrinking due to the spread of standardized tests in K-12 education.
Dr. David Wojick has presented Heartland a proposal to produce a global warming curriculum
for K-12 schools that appears to have great potential for success. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with
the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area
of information and communication science. He has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science and
mathematical logic from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.S. in civil engineering from
Carnegie Tech. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon and the staffs of the U.S. Office
of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab.
Dr. Wojick has conducted extensive research on environmental and science education for the
Department of Energy. In the course of this research, he has identified what subjects and
concepts teachers must teach, and in what order (year by year), in order to harmonize with
national test requirements. He has contacts at virtually all the national organizations involved in
producing, certifying, and promoting science curricula.
Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on �modules� for grades 10-12 on climate change (�whether
humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy�), climate models (�models
are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is
controversial�), and air pollution (�whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global
food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions�).
Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (�environmental impact
is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not
humans are changing the weather�), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so
on.
We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $5,000 per module, about $25,000 a quarter, starting in
the second quarter of 2012, for this work. The Anonymous Donor has pledged the first $100,000
for this project, and we will circulate a proposal to match and then expand upon that investment.

Yeah why doesnt K-12 education teach the truth!? CO2 doesnt pollute the air like smog yet scientists say it does!! (oh wait, no they dont... they say it functions as a GHG). Humans arent adding co2 to the atmosphere.. theres no way to know these things!! THERES CONTROVERSY! Oh yeah.. and models are inaccurate, climategate climategate climategate climategate... oh and climategate?? OH IPCC uses 19 models?? well, climate gate.

Oh yeah, and of course the tried and true "heat islands are the reason we think temperature is rising, theres no other measurements of temperature... only city based weather stations," with an added bit of "its unfair that people are saying global warming is causing record highs and lows :qq:

quote:

J. Weather Stations Project
Every few months, weathermen report that a temperature record � either high or low � has been
broken somewhere in the U.S. This is not surprising, since weather is highly variable and reliable
instrument records date back less than 100 years old. Regrettably, news of these broken records
is often used by environmental extremists as evidence that human emissions are causing either
global warming or the more ambiguous �climate change.�
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who hosts WattsUpwithThat.com, one of the most popular and
influential science blogs in the world, has documented that many of the temperature stations
relied on by weathermen are compromised by heat radiating from nearby buildings, machines, or
paved surfaces. It is not uncommon for these stations to over-state temperatures by 3 or 4
degrees or more, enough to set spurious records.
Because of Watts� past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work
that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature
stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that
meet its citing specifications. Unfortunately, NOAA doesn�t widely publicize data from this new
network, and puts raw data in spreadsheets buried on one of its Web sites.
Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data
from NOAA�s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily
found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise
in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and
-20-
meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at WattsUpwithThat.com.
Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The Anonymous
Donor has already pledged $44,000. We�ll seek to raise the balance.

coolskillrex remix fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 23, 2012

# ? Feb 23, 2012 23:43

Heresiarch: Oct 6, 2005; Literature is not exhaustible, for the sufficient and simple reason that no single book is. A book is not an isolated being: it is a relationship, an axis of innumerable relationships.

See also this analysis of the "fake" document.

# ? Feb 24, 2012 01:18

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

So we've had a couple years of tornadoes happening in weird places, out of season, abnormally often, etc.

If I had the same kind of ethics void as conservatives do I would be saying something like the tornadoes continuing to hit the GOP voting base until they get it through their thick skulls that this poo poo is really happening.

# ? Mar 3, 2012 09:15

underage at the vape shop: May 11, 2011; by Cyrano4747

Since carbon dioxide + h20 <=> carbonic acid + heat, won't increased carbon levels in the ocean result in a temporarily decreased PH, then an increased PH, due to global warming heating the water and thus pushing the equation back towards co2 and water?
If this is true, doesn't it mean that fish will get hosed over by the increased temperature and not the PH, and the ocean life that relies on CaCO3 to make shells will be hosed over due to CaCO3 being dissolved due to the new lack of carbonate ions in the water?

I always understood it as being that it would be an increased acidity that kills everything but I've recently learned about chemical equilibrium and I think I might be wrong. Am I?

underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Mar 4, 2012

# ? Mar 4, 2012 00:30

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

Global warming is a problem because of broad ecological effects; the actual heat increase is small enough that it won't have any harmful direct consequences. The pH of water is not appreciably higher if you warm it up a few degrees.

# ? Mar 4, 2012 00:47

Paper Mac: Mar 2, 2007; lives in a paper shack

GreatKesh posted:

Since carbon dioxide + h20 <=> carbonic acid + heat, won't increased carbon levels in the ocean result in a temporarily decreased PH, then an increased PH, due to global warming heating the water and thus pushing the equation back towards co2 and water?
If this is true, doesn't it mean that fish will get hosed over by the increased temperature and not the PH, and the ocean life that relies on CaCO3 to make shells will be hosed over due to CaCO3 being dissolved due to the new lack of carbonate ions in the water?

I always understood it as being that it would be an increased acidity that kills everything but I've recently learned about chemical equilibrium and I think I might be wrong. Am I?

I know very little about ocean acidification, but according to this:

quote:

During the Pliocene warm period, about 3 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was about the same as today, but pH was only 0.06 to 0.11 units lower than preindustrial conditions. This is because the event played out over 320,000 years or so. We see species migration in the fossil record in response to the warming planet, but not ill effects on calcifiers. This is because ocean acidification depends primarily on the rate of atmospheric CO2 increases, not the absolute concentration.

So there's more going on than just a concentration-dependent equilibrium process.

# ? Mar 4, 2012 03:28

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

GreatKesh posted:

Since carbon dioxide + h20 <=> carbonic acid + heat, won't increased carbon levels in the ocean result in a temporarily decreased PH, then an increased PH, due to global warming heating the water and thus pushing the equation back towards co2 and water?
If this is true, doesn't it mean that fish will get hosed over by the increased temperature and not the PH, and the ocean life that relies on CaCO3 to make shells will be hosed over due to CaCO3 being dissolved due to the new lack of carbonate ions in the water?

I always understood it as being that it would be an increased acidity that kills everything but I've recently learned about chemical equilibrium and I think I might be wrong. Am I?

You are right about a decrease in carbonate ions being the primary concern relating to ocean acidification, but I'm not sure what you are saying about how this relates to temperature. How else would fish be hosed by ocean acidification, besides having their calcifying prey obliterated? I guess it might be comforting that the decreasing solubility of CO2 in a warming ocean could limit how bad acidification can get. Too bad that that happens to be yet another positive feedback system: Less CO2 dissolving in the ocean means more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Amarkov temperature often has really big ecological effects, especially in aquatic environments. Unusually high water temperatures are probably the biggest cause of coral bleaching around. Even without acidification threatening corals the heat stress alone is threatening to destroy many reefs. Warmer water also holds less oxygen, which causes plenty of its own problems.

# ? Mar 4, 2012 05:26

TyroneGoldstein: Mar 30, 2005

The Entire Universe posted:

Tomorrow's high is supposed to be drat near 50 here in Omaha, which is one of those "gently caress YOU SNOW" days where you simply do not want to step in the grass as the snowmelt turns it into the shittiest goddamn mud ever. I'm talking shoe-stealing stain-the-gently caress-out-of-everything red clay mud.

In not-so-local news, Denver's high on Wednesday is expected to be 66. Mile high short sleeves.

Its been like this in coastal NY/NYC area the entire sum...I mean winter. I'm not the type to confuse weather with climate, but this is disconcerting. Next winter will tell the story though because the PDO is in I believe the cool phase so this is meant to happen. That is if I understand el nino and la nina cycles.

Still, we've got stop liberating all this drat sequestered carbon into the loving system.

# ? Mar 4, 2012 23:12

Pipe Dreamer: Sep 2, 2011; by Y Kant Ozma Post

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=434

quote:

Acute water shortage conditions combined with thermal stress should adversely affect wheat and, more severely, rice productivity in India even under the positive effects of elevated CO2 in the future.

I don't know, they seem to be doing alright at the moment?

Rice

http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/news/marketupdates/?storyid=3421

quote:

India is reaching records this year in many key agriculture areas� India has become the world�s largest producer of rice as a result of record production and the lifting of a three-year ban non-basmati rice exports.

And wheat:

http://www.blackseagrain.net/photo/india.-wheat-exports-to-more-than-double-in-2012-13-on-record-harvest

quote:

Wheat exports from India, the world�s second-biggest producer, is expected to more than double to 1.5 million tonnes in the 2012-13 marketing year on account of back-to-back record harvest, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in a report.

# ? Mar 4, 2012 23:26

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

Part of India's problem is it shares the same water source as Pakistan: glacier melt. Unfortunately, the glaciers are starting to disappear (the floods in Pakistan are another by-product of this). So India's agriculture will be doing just great. Until the glaciers melt and the water starts disappearing, and both countries start taking more than the share of water they've been allocated in their treaties.

# ? Mar 4, 2012 23:50

PUNCHITCHEWIE: Apr 4, 2009; IF I'M TALKING ABOUT FOOTBALL, IGNORE ME. I'M A FUCKING IDIOT.

Dreylad posted:

Part of India's problem is it shares the same water source as Pakistan: glacier melt. Unfortunately, the glaciers are starting to disappear (the floods in Pakistan are another by-product of this). So India's agriculture will be doing just great. Until the glaciers melt and the water starts disappearing, and both countries start taking more than the share of water they've been allocated in their treaties.

Uh no, the vast majority of water in India comes from groundwater that came from normal rain. Have you ever been to India in July? Where are you getting this claim from?

# ? Mar 5, 2012 00:39

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

Sorry it affects Pakistan's agricultural production, because the Indians have been damming the rivers. But the river dries up that has serious consequences for India too.

# ? Mar 5, 2012 00:57

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

It's not the sole source of water for India but many of its biggest and most important rivers originate in the Himalayas where they are fed by melting snow pack. The Ganges, Indus and Brahmaputra, rivers also important for Pakistan and Bangladesh, are all fed by snow and glacial melt. Sorry I don't have any data on what percent of their flow comes from melt water but I imagine it becomes important during the dry season.

# ? Mar 5, 2012 01:08

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

PUNCHITCHEWIE posted:

Uh no, the vast majority of water in India comes from groundwater that came from normal rain. Have you ever been to India in July? Where are you getting this claim from?

The glaciers act much like natural reservoirs for the seasonal rains if/when the go, there is a serious issue with being able to have a stable access to water during the dry season, from September to June. The groundwater is being drawn down faster than it is replenished, much like how the U.S. is doing in the western states. India could draw more water from their rivers than the western U.S., but their surface water has some serious pollution issues.

# ? Mar 5, 2012 01:35

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

"If there's no action by 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." - Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC 2007

At the end of roughly 36 pages of writing about climate change, governance schemes and global inaction, I'm about ready to learn how to subsistence farm and hunt. Maybe I'll make money selling survival gear to dumb yuppies.

# ? Mar 5, 2012 17:37

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Kafka Esq. posted:

"If there's no action by 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." - Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC 2007

At the end of roughly 36 pages of writing about climate change, governance schemes and global inaction, I'm about ready to learn how to subsistence farm and hunt. Maybe I'll make money selling survival gear to dumb yuppies.

My biggest fear is that if we do face mounting climatological shifts, that society and government as they are continue on without collapsing and having the opportunity to be rebuilt by people for whom "I loving TOLD YOU SO" doesn't quite soothe the rage. Any outcome that doesn't end up with civilization coming out unrecognizable on the other side is going to just put us right back where we are, or just result in the slow boiling off of humanity.

# ? Mar 5, 2012 22:58

Locus: Feb 28, 2004; But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won.

If the current political trends in the U.S. continue until we start facing serious climate-related problems, either everything is going to burn down, or the crisis will be weathered (by the government, if not the people) with massive doses of fascism.

Right now they're passing a bill that makes protesting illegal if it's done (either knowingly or unknowingly) within a certain distance of some government officials and important events. Enjoy your 1 to 10 years in jail. :toot:

# ? Mar 5, 2012 23:18

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Locus posted:

Right now they're passing a bill that makes protesting illegal if it's done (either knowingly or unknowingly) within a certain distance of some government officials and important events. Enjoy your 1 to 10 years in jail.

Is that really going to pass constitutional muster?

# ? Mar 6, 2012 01:49

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

duck monster posted:

Is that really going to pass constitutional muster?

It looks like the actual bill is pretty sharply targeted. Covers specifically areas under current Secret Service protection (Generally this is going to be Presidential residences and appearances, plus when political candidates, etc. are under such protection) and under restricted access anyway, and further is filled with "knowingly" and "with intent" language for disruptive behavior, blocking access, etc. I might be missing something, but right now it looks like a mix of the usual reporting quality of RT and conspiracy sites, with a lot of links to people being upset that it will be illegal to literally throw things at candidates you dislike.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 04:07

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Killer robot posted:

It looks like the actual bill is pretty sharply targeted. Covers specifically areas under current Secret Service protection (Generally this is going to be Presidential residences and appearances, plus when political candidates, etc. are under such protection) and under restricted access anyway, and further is filled with "knowingly" and "with intent" language for disruptive behavior, blocking access, etc. I might be missing something, but right now it looks like a mix of the usual reporting quality of RT and conspiracy sites, with a lot of links to people being upset that it will be illegal to literally throw things at candidates you dislike.

So basically they are outlawing DNC/RNC protests?

# ? Mar 6, 2012 04:07

agarjogger: May 16, 2011

Kafka Esq. posted:

"If there's no action by 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." - Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC 2007

At the end of roughly 36 pages of writing about climate change, governance schemes and global inaction, I'm about ready to learn how to subsistence farm and hunt. Maybe I'll make money selling survival gear to dumb yuppies.

I listened to a lecture by a longtime environmental activist by the name of Derrick Jensen. Over the years, he's watched progress turn backward, and he knows there's really no more time. He asked lots of rhetorical questions, and made the audience think deep about just how far they were willing to go to save their species. Jensen made it clear he did very little moral hand-wringing about the question, and that he would trade his life in defense of his home (earth) without a second thought. He said that when old action groups begin to reactivate and new ones form, it was not the duty of environmentalists to join them, or even support them; just to refrain from condemning them as they went about their work.
The point is that the Keystone XL is like a no-brainer if you're an environmental insurgent. I think you'd have groups from all over the world gunning for it, and I simply don't see it getting built. They can't possibly guard the whole thing and it's too easy to put a hole in.

Listening to somebody mention the possibility in public without fear gave me hope, and there are still far too many people who give a poo poo to start despairing just yet.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 04:59

Augure: Jan 9, 2011; by Y Kant Ozma Boo

duck monster posted:

So basically they are outlawing DNC/RNC protests?

And G20.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 07:35

Corrupt Politician: Aug 8, 2007

I'm of the opinion that regardless of the environmental consequences, nearly every barrel of economically-recoverable oil in the world will eventually be drilled, refined, and burned. Without some miracle tech that can let us live our current lifestyle without fossil fuels, people will simply not be willing to give it up.

I'm just praying that either climate change turns out to be less severe than predicted, or we come up with some ingenious geoengineering scheme that doesn't kill us all. Because asking people to stop drilling is like asking hunters in 1875 not to shoot Passenger Pigeons. It's too easy, it's too lucrative, and while we probably could stop ourselves, we won't.

The Entire Universe posted:

My biggest fear is that if we do face mounting climatological shifts, that society and government as they are continue on without collapsing and having the opportunity to be rebuilt by people for whom "I loving TOLD YOU SO" doesn't quite soothe the rage. Any outcome that doesn't end up with civilization coming out unrecognizable on the other side is going to just put us right back where we are, or just result in the slow boiling off of humanity.

People don't fundamentally change. Collapses have happened before, and every society finds a way to convince itself that it's the exception.

By the way, I'm not convinced that there will be a catastrophic, civilization-ending collapse. But if it does happen, I see no reason to think people would suddenly start living sustainably.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 08:11

agarjogger: May 16, 2011

If we can't bring ourselves to cooperate, we've got no business surviving anyway.
Political failure is a pretty bad excuse for forcing an extinction event.
Your view is so god-damned depressing I reject it with every cell in my body.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 08:23

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Corrupt Politician posted:

I'm of the opinion that regardless of the environmental consequences, nearly every barrel of economically-recoverable oil in the world will eventually be drilled, refined, and burned. Without some miracle tech that can let us live our current lifestyle without fossil fuels, people will simply not be willing to give it up.

I'm just praying that either climate change turns out to be less severe than predicted, or we come up with some ingenious geoengineering scheme that doesn't kill us all. Because asking people to stop drilling is like asking hunters in 1875 not to shoot Passenger Pigeons. It's too easy, it's too lucrative, and while we probably could stop ourselves, we won't.

People don't fundamentally change. Collapses have happened before, and every society finds a way to convince itself that it's the exception.

By the way, I'm not convinced that there will be a catastrophic, civilization-ending collapse. But if it does happen, I see no reason to think people would suddenly start living sustainably.

Yeah, I was basically assuming the people who saw it coming lined everyone who didn't up along a graded ditch and then commenced gagging them with chloroform and turning them into the (at least for a short while) living foundation of a solar thermal plant. That would probably take care of what screaming "I TOLD YOU SO" doesn't.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 08:32

underage at the vape shop: May 11, 2011; by Cyrano4747

Squalid posted:

You are right about a decrease in carbonate ions being the primary concern relating to ocean acidification, but I'm not sure what you are saying about how this relates to temperature. How else would fish be hosed by ocean acidification, besides having their calcifying prey obliterated? I guess it might be comforting that the decreasing solubility of CO2 in a warming ocean could limit how bad acidification can get. Too bad that that happens to be yet another positive feedback system: Less CO2 dissolving in the ocean means more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Amarkov temperature often has really big ecological effects, especially in aquatic environments. Unusually high water temperatures are probably the biggest cause of coral bleaching around. Even without acidification threatening corals the heat stress alone is threatening to destroy many reefs. Warmer water also holds less oxygen, which causes plenty of its own problems.

It was something silly I thought of, posted, realised it had a high chance of being wrong but I left it there anyway on the off chance I'd be right or that someone would say how I'm wrong.

Paper Mac posted:

I know very little about ocean acidification, but according to this:

So there's more going on than just a concentration-dependent equilibrium process.

I really want to know if we can figure out why the PH didn't drop and replicate it

# ? Mar 6, 2012 08:56

spunkshui: Oct 5, 2011

Corrupt Politician posted:

I'm of the opinion that regardless of the environmental consequences, nearly every barrel of economically-recoverable oil in the world will eventually be drilled, refined, and burned. Without some miracle tech that can let us live our current lifestyle without fossil fuels, people will simply not be willing to give it up.

Its called the electric motor.

Middle east unrest spiking gas prices before supply's disappear is a good thing.

The people will demand affordable plug in electric cars.

edit: If we do gently caress up the planet a lot of plants and animals might die off but we sure as hell wont. We can survive in Antarctica, we can survive in space, could survive on whatever hell hole we turn this place into.

spunkshui fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Mar 6, 2012

# ? Mar 6, 2012 08:59

Corrupt Politician: Aug 8, 2007

spunkshui posted:

Its called the electric motor.

Middle east unrest spiking gas prices before supply's disappear is a good thing.

The people will demand affordable plug in electric cars.

Ideally, oil prices would rise steadily over time and provide increasing pressure to develop alternative technologies, but won't rise fast enough to cause societal catastrophe. I mean, $500/barrel oil would essentially make the USA collapse if it happens before we've found a new way to get to work, transport our goods, and make our food.

quote:

edit: If we do gently caress up the planet a lot of plants and animals might die off but we sure as hell wont. We can survive in Antarctica, we can survive in space, could survive on whatever hell hole we turn this place into.

Well of course people aren't gonna go extinct anytime soon, nobody's saying that. But if things go as badly as many are predicting, there might be a lot fewer of us, and we might have a much lower standard of living.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 09:30

Heresiarch: Oct 6, 2005; Literature is not exhaustible, for the sufficient and simple reason that no single book is. A book is not an isolated being: it is a relationship, an axis of innumerable relationships.

spunkshui posted:

Its called the electric motor.

Middle east unrest spiking gas prices before supply's disappear is a good thing.

The people will demand affordable plug in electric cars.

Those electric cars will, in the vast majority of cases, be charged using electricity generated from the burning of fossil fuels.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 10:06

Deleuzionist: Jul 20, 2010; we respect the antelope; for the antelope is not a mere antelope

spunkshui posted:

edit: If we do gently caress up the planet a lot of plants and animals might die off but we sure as hell wont. We can survive in Antarctica, we can survive in space, could survive on whatever hell hole we turn this place into.

The thought of being able to survive a self-caused disaster by switching a comfortable living for a pitiful precarious existence isn't exactly a radiant ray of hope.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 11:27

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Heresiarch posted:

Those electric cars will, in the vast majority of cases, be charged using electricity generated from the burning of fossil fuels.

That and the cars themselves are built in factories running off fossil fuels, which means the carbon debt takes even longer to pay back even if they were running off entirely renewable sources.

Basically the only things that can save the environment in the long run now involves nuclear weaponry or a deadly plague that kills off most of the worlds' population.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 11:53

Injoduprelo: Sep 30, 2006; Stare long enough, and you may find yourself.

spunkshui posted:

The people will demand affordable plug in electric cars.

Whenever I read this sort of statement my mind boggles a bit - surely we're contemplating a world where the car, and all of it's support mechanisms (fuel/energy tax subsidies, roads, automotive industry subsidies, component input dependencies [metals, rubber, plastics etc], layout of human used space [i.e. the way we use our space] etc) and our commitment to use them (time spent in transit, time spent not doing more survival-important things), and the energy invested in them are all on equally, if not more shaky ground than the petrol driven car itself.

The idea that 'people will demand [insert any energy type here] cars' in a climate challenged world seems to me to be a highly spurious notion.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 13:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 06:00

Maluco Marinero: Jan 18, 2001; Damn that's a
fine elephant.

Yep, the precious first world lifestyles of Australia, America and the like we're built on the assumption of indefinite cheap transportation. The long expanses of suburbia become much less sustainable once you remove that assumption.

How much rare metal is required to build the batteries to switch the entire first world over to electric cars? How much of that electricity is fossil fuel based anyway? How much of our oil based economy will electricity NOT be able to support using present tech, ie Agriculture, Heavy Transport, Mining? I don't know the answers to these, but it probably won't look like just a quick techno fix I'm sure.

The electric car will not solve our problems, merely one of them, and a pretty small one at that, whilst a bigger one, namely that our cities are so poorly designed that there is an excessive amount of wasted resources in day to day living, goes unaddressed because it's such a difficult question to answer.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 14:19

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

«‹›260 »