|
Hollismason posted:So is this going to be more common? Like could it shift permanently? Or just be incredibly more frequent? I only have 2 Minnesota winters under my belt and I'm already putting air quotes around that "cold" in the northeast. (Those are lows btw - those temps are really not that uncommon)
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Geostomp posted:Already purging dissent. He's shaping up to be a fine dictator. That does seem to be the plan. From the Louisiana Senate runoff election: Just one candidate in Louisiana’s Senate runoff embraces climate change facts posted:Foster Campbell, the top remaining Democratic candidate, has been vocal about the fact that climate change could cause “irreversible damage” to Louisiana’s ample coastline. John Kennedy, the Republican candidate and current polling favorite, has largely avoided the subject. Kennedy told Louisiana-based paper The Advocate this fall that although he accepts the fact that global temperatures are rising, he does not think there is evidence to explain why this is happening. The Republican strategy is pretty clear; deny the problem as long as possible until that's no longer tenable, then claim it's too late to do anything. It does lead to some interesting positions in places already affected by climate change, where conservative politicians have to acknowledge the reality of rising temperatures and sea levels while expressing befuddlement as to what could be causing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:If you think isolating yourself in an area that might be hospitable in a post warming world than you greatly underestimate the impact of societal collapse. The second lawlessness rules you will be subject to violence. You're cute garden and pigs will be a target. You will die. It's just selfish at this point to abandon society. You're efforts will go lot farther in figuring out how to deal with the current crisis, and how society can continue in a post warming society. Don't be a coward, go down with the ship, and be prepared for suicide. Well that's one of the reasons people are moving to New Zealand, it's an island where you won't be immediately swarmed by climate refugees since you have to cross an ocean to get there. Society doesn't just immediately flip the switch from "good" to "collapsed" in one day, it takes time, and anyone who knows it's coming can do more to prepare for it than someone who doesn't, and maybe eventually that means that your group of people move out somewhere remote and hope that nobody can be bothered to bring a tank or something else that you can't hold off with hunting rifles out that far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
By the numbers what type of government has the longest chance to survive a collapsing world?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:By the numbers what type of government has the longest chance to survive a collapsing world? The one at the top of the richest country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
How are u posted:Thanks for letting us know, rear end in a top hat. You don't intend to make sure your family is going to be okay? That's pretty cold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Speaking of, it looks like the Northeast will be drowning in cold. Oh man that is going to bring so much loving snow with it around the great lakes since theyre like 3-4 degrees warmer than normal this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
OH Goddamnit I am going to have put out salt tomorrow and shovel Sunday. Looks like we're getting "5 inches" which of course means 10 because.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Is there any serious evidence that wealthy states at high latitudes won't survive rising sea levels, droughts, and high temperatures? Surely North America has a huge cushion of natural resources? The population of Mexico could move into the US and we'd still have much lower population densities than Eurasia. I think you guys are underestimating the resiliency of states and society. Closed borders really mean closed borders, rationing really means rationing. States don't collapse immediately in these circumstances, if they collapse at all. States survive megadeath events all the time. Standard of living doesn't have to keep going up. Democracy doesn't have to survive. You're also underestimating the capacity of states to shoot people when things get rough. There's a whole range of possible outcomes between carbon-neutral liberal democracy and total collapse of society. Stop watching apocalypse fiction and go out there and join political organizations and even take them over if you can. I dunno, advocate violence if you think it will help. Building a walled compound in Minnesota just takes you out of the equation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Is there any serious evidence that wealthy states at high latitudes won't survive rising sea levels, droughts, and high temperatures? Surely North America has a huge cushion of natural resources? The population of Mexico could move into the US and we'd still have much lower population densities than Eurasia. If we had a purge like in that Rick and Morty episode you could earn carbon credits for every first-worlder you cap. The richer/younger the purgee the more credits* *finally the system will work in my favor
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Is there any serious evidence that wealthy states at high latitudes won't survive rising sea levels, droughts, and high temperatures? Surely North America has a huge cushion of natural resources? The population of Mexico could move into the US and we'd still have much lower population densities than Eurasia. I've meant for all my posts to accommodate for the likely occurrence of authoritarian and fascist governments taking power in all wealthy first world nations, apologies if it wasn't clear. North America's cushion of natural resources isn't such a comforting idea when taking into account that so many of those will be rendered useless by virtue of being far enough south that they just become desert, which leaves me in the unenviable position of living in the country next door to the one with the most powerful military in the world, that will take our resources by trade agreement first, then by force when necessary. Resource wars aren't such a happy thought when so many nations are equipped with nuclear arms, and there literally aren't going to be enough resources to go around and feed the entire population when poo poo gets bad. quote:Stop watching apocalypse fiction and go out there and join political organizations and even take them over if you can. I dunno, advocate violence if you think it will help Violence will not help, the state is far too powerful for violence to be effective on any scale that could be considered reasonable, and the people of the first world will never see such a thing as justified until it is far too late to make any real difference in the world. I know this because as a person who knows perfectly well how hosed we are, and has a pretty solid foundation of ideas of what people and places you might want to target to create a better world for the people of tomorrow, I still have absolutely no interest in risking my life or freedom to make a difference in the world. I'm far from alone in that attitude, and to even get most people to that point you'd have to educate their stupid rear end on how hosed we really are regarding climate change. It would be great if someone would go around bombing coal plants and taking out the people responsible for the destruction of the world, but there will never be enough support for such a thing to make a difference in the long run. It's just not the way the first world is set up. quote:Building a walled compound in Minnesota just takes you out of the equation. Uh yes that is the goal? Why would I want to be a part of the equation of the future of this world? It's a bad equation, dude. What do I care if my country survives or not if I'm not around to see it? ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:That does seem to be the plan. From the Louisiana Senate runoff election: "Hey, we don't know why all the mammoths are gone now. I mean, the climate was changing, who's to say us hunting their dwindling herds at the few small watering holes was the final nail in the coffin? I mean sure, that certainly seemed to make them scarcer faster, but who knows?" - Some Idiot, 12 KYA
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
My biggest qualm with environment groups is their stance on nuclear power. It's actively damaging to the environment to oppose nuclear imo. Are there any pro-nuclear, anti-fossil groups?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:My biggest qualm with environment groups is their stance on nuclear power. It's actively damaging to the environment to oppose nuclear imo. Are there any pro-nuclear, anti-fossil groups? Why to all your things
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:I'm working in environmental justice organizing at the moment while I save money and get my ducks in a row for grad school. There are some fairly big climate-centric, anti-Trump events being planned right now by various groups that will start actively recruiting folks after the new year, both for decentralized local action and for large coordinated events like a protest in DC. I'll share info as I get it. Note: while the Sierra Club is good for local conservation, but it's poo poo when it comes to larger scale sustainability issues due to its rabid opposition to anything nuclear or genetically modified, i.e. two important tools to save the environment. Either join with the express intention to make it less poo poo by changing these counterproductive stances or join another group that has more sensible stances on these issues. In addition, if you feel like donating money (and whatever you do, keep in mind greenpeace is also terrible about nuclear and GMOs), I recommend e.g. the gapminder foundation due to their awesome work in making people more scientifically literate about development and sustainability, or if you're a bleeding heart pro-nuke like me the Weinberg foundation for promoting a Full Thorium Fuel Cycle Now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 12:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
cosmicprank posted:Why to all your things Assuming you're serious: Nuclear = low-CO2 electricity, providing consistent baseload that can provide support to a grid with a moderate amount of solar+wind. Everything else that can do baseload = either high-CO2 electricity (coal, also natural gas) or highly environmentally damaging and not sufficiently scalable (hydro to any river that isn't already ecologically ruined, biomass because of land use and habitat clearing). Being an environmentalist group and also being completely anti-nuclear means shooting yourself in the foot by making the process of decarbonising our energy generation slower and more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
I dont know how anyone can just keep living knowing that this is happening. Careers look useless to me, hope is a lie, I have almost no friends,never had an SO. I am literally hoping my heart stops or something so that my family doesnt destroy itself with grief over my death.I even tried therapy but just keep getting more "things will work out!" bullshit and all the therapists I tried are mothers so I always hold back on telling them how utterly hosed their children are. What do I do?
AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I dont know how anyone can just keep living knowing that this is happening. Careers look useless to me, hope is a lie, I have almost no friends,never had an SO. I am literally hoping my heart stops or something so that my family doesnt destroy itself with grief over my death.I even tried therapy but just keep getting more "things will work out!" bullshit and all the erapists I tried are mothers so I always hold back on telling them how utterly hosed their children are. What do I do? "things will work out" is always a good assumption to make even when it's not going to happen realistically, because getting depressed over something doesn't make it better while being optimistic and trying to very slightly increase the chance of things not getting hosed up won't make it worse suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
blowfish posted:"things will work out" is always a good assumption to make even when it's not going to happen realistically, because getting depressed over something doesn't make it better I am incapable of that level of denial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
also in the grand scheme of things even catastrophic climate change won't matter too much, give it a million years or twenty and there'll be new species filling all the ecological niches humanity freed up by killing off currently-existing species
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
See, I never understood why that is supposed to be comforting. "Oh humans will be gone but other animals will show up!" Who cares? These animals arent sentient. They wont have the capacity for art, for love, for empathy, for creativity. Who care if a beautiful world is reborn if there is nothing intelligent left to see it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I dont know how anyone can just keep living knowing that this is happening. Careers look useless to me, hope is a lie, I have almost no friends,never had an SO. I am literally hoping my heart stops or something so that my family doesnt destroy itself with grief over my death.I even tried therapy but just keep getting more "things will work out!" bullshit and all the therapists I tried are mothers so I always hold back on telling them how utterly hosed their children are. What do I do? It'll start getting bad when our generation starts dying. Don't buy a shorefront property and enjoy having been born right at the peak!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Personally I think we are headed for the eight figure death toll instead of the nine. Geo-engineering will start looking like a good idea at that point. And I agree with the guy who said that past experience shows that societal civilisation is robust enough to massive numbers of deaths. It survived the black death, the Mongols, WWI... And it will probably survive even 75% of people dying. I think the moral duty for our generation is (if stopping this is impossible) to observe, to condemn, to collect evidence. If we are collectively executing the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, we must at least ensure that justice is done when the victims come to collect their vengeance. Edit: in the best case scenario, there will be the trial of the millennium, and we cannot allow these people or their heirs to make the case that 'they couldn't possibly have known'. In the worst case scenario, well, we must not let those who murdered the world survive to rule what's left of it. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
An update on Canada's feeble struggle against the rising tide:The Globe and Mail: Trudeau reaches historic deal on national climate plan posted:Prime Minister Justin Trudeau achieved a historic climate-change accord Friday but could not win support for his national carbon pricing plan from key Western provinces. A few comments: -Christy Clark is the worst, this kind of behavior is typical for the leader of the BC Liberals -Opposition to the deal largely follows political affiliation, with Conservatives opposed with the usual concerns about international competitiveness and cost -Americans will be pleased to know that the Trump administration's opposition to climate change mitigation is already being used as a political cudgel against action in other countries -It's truly shocking that Rachel Notley as the Premier of Alberta (the province ruled by the tar sands aka Mordor) is in favor of a climate change mitigation plan. The only happened because provincial Conservatives ruled Alberta effectively as a one-party state for 40 years and achieved such impressive levels of corruption that they were finally voted out in 2015. It wasn't due to environmental advocacy or improving scientific literacy, just a happy coincidence of electoral politics allowing a progressive party to gain power -Rachel's brother draws Bob the Angry Flower which is pretty ok -Canada will probably not meet 2030 targets without buying a lot of carbon credits
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I dont know how anyone can just keep living knowing that this is happening. Careers look useless to me, hope is a lie, I have almost no friends,never had an SO. I am literally hoping my heart stops or something so that my family doesnt destroy itself with grief over my death.I even tried therapy but just keep getting more "things will work out!" bullshit and all the therapists I tried are mothers so I always hold back on telling them how utterly hosed their children are. What do I do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
TACD posted:Stop letting things over which you have no control dictate your happiness. You never had control over the fate of the planet or the guarantee of a safe future; this is all just making the illusion apparent. Nothing has actually changed and you are still able to live a good life by focusing on doing the best you can with the things that are actually under your control. Live a good life because it matters here and now, not because of how you imagined and hoped history would play out over the next few centuries. So I am just supposed to pretend nothing is happening? Form attachments to people who will die horribly or will have to protect? Make a career knowing that it will all turn to dust? I keep hearing about how you're supposed to love the process of what you do but I only ever manage to care about results. Why make something that will not last? Why strive for a brief moment of happiness if it comes with thousands more moments of pain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
TACD posted:Stop letting things over which you have no control dictate your happiness. You never had control over the fate of the planet or the guarantee of a safe future; this is all just making the illusion apparent. Nothing has actually changed and you are still able to live a good life by focusing on doing the best you can with the things that are actually under your control. What is this control freakery? When my loved ones die I am unhappy, I don't become less so because I can still clean my teeth efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:So I am just supposed to pretend nothing is happening? Form attachments to people who will die horribly or will have to protect? Make a career knowing that it will all turn to dust? I keep hearing about how you're supposed to love the process of what you do but I only ever manage to care about results. Why make something that will not last? Why strive for a brief moment of happiness if it comes with thousands more moments of pain? Welcome to the human condition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Put things into your rear end until you die Edit: wrong thread but topical
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:So I am just supposed to pretend nothing is happening? Form attachments to people who will die horribly or will have to protect? Make a career knowing that it will all turn to dust? I keep hearing about how you're supposed to love the process of what you do but I only ever manage to care about results. Why make something that will not last? Why strive for a brief moment of happiness if it comes with thousands more moments of pain? The world isn't going to end, just be lovely compared to the past. Maybe even really really lovely. You should still try to pair up with a SO, just don't have kids. Get a dog instead. poo poo was real bad during The Black Death and during the World Wars too, but it wasn't true that everything turned to dust and nothing lasted. Make good close lasting friends who will march into hell with you, because that may just be where we are going.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Take some deep breaths, climate change thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvPugcb7QGE
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
With the gutting of the EPA and DOE on personnel related to Climate Change apparently incoming won't this have the effect of us not being able to continue studying climate change as much as we should be so maybe we'll see the effects but we won't know the causes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Seriously though in the 20th century we've seen states survive seven figure deaths in their own populations and keep going for 50 years. The PRC is still chugging along after a 30 megadeath event. The Soviet Union survived a 30 megadeath event followed shortly after by a 7 megadeath event. Climate change will surely bring about death and misery on a scale not seen since the world wars, but states are fairly resilient to that sort of stress. Look at Syria for example, the country is going through a civil war and depopulated but the state looks like its going to survive. It usually takes weakened institutions and protracted civil war to bring a state down into lawlessness and warlordism a la Mad Max in the modern period. Modern firepower is a real thing to consider in societal collapse; it's not as easy as it used to be to bring down centralized authority. As it gets harder for the people to overturn the state, insider coups look like the most realistic way to effect large political change, but insider coups virtually ensure continuity of law and order. Before you accuse me of not taking this seriously enough, the world I'm describing is no fun. Governments machine-gunning their people and putting refugees in camps to eke out a miserable existence or die as the climate death toll creeps up into the eight digits is not a fun scenario. But it's way more likely than this idea that agriculture and transport will collapse in the 1st world and it's going to be just like all those zombie apocalypse movies you saw. To the guy who's full of despair, the world of 100 years from now with resource wars, refugee crises and state crackdowns is still a world that will need people to fight for what's right. If the carrying capacity of the Earth contracts significantly over the next few hundred years, we'll still need political leadership that recognizes that fact and acts accordingly. You are needed now, you're needed 20 years from now, you'll be needed when you're old. There's no way out; we're in this for the long haul. Stop flying though. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:With the gutting of the EPA and DOE on personnel related to Climate Change apparently incoming won't this have the effect of us not being able to continue studying climate change as much as we should be so maybe we'll see the effects but we won't know the causes. Yes, that is their plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:So is this going to be more common? Like could it shift permanently? Or just be incredibly more frequent? The thought is that a warming Arctic displaces the cold - the polar vortex - to another location. A little while back, that was Siberia. It then moved through Alaska and Canada into the lower 48 states. It's also thought that it could shift more towards hanging around in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Is Trump planning to purge the states of Climate Change researchers? http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/12/09/trump-administration-planning-climate-purge Grouchio fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Personally I think we are headed for the eight figure death toll instead of the nine. Geo-engineering will start looking like a good idea at that point. 11th hour geoengineering isn't going to be meaningfully impactful. It's going to require unanimous international consent, at least among developed nations and rich developing nations. You're talking about altering the entire planet's climate on a scale that's never been (intentionally) attempted before, with global ramifications and unknown side effects. What nation has the right to do that? How are you going to get the countries that are less affected by climate change onboard? Countries might not be willing to start a war with the US over sulfate aerosols, but they might threaten to shoot down aircraft delivering them or threaten trade embargoes until the program is stopped. We'd be opening Pandora's Box by allowing one country or a small group of countries to alter the climate for their own ends, and I guarantee you that a lot of people would be strongly opposed to that even if the situation were dire. There's also no way that we're even going to attempt any of these ambitious projects until things are looking pretty bleak, and by then we won't be able to do anything about our flooded cities or areas that have already been abandoned thanks to droughts/loss of farmland. Even direct cooling methods like sulfate aerosols aren't going to immediately make areas inhabitable again, and even if they did you'd have a whole new crisis as governments figure out how to move displaced populations back and rebuild abandoned infrastructure. And what about areas that climate change has made more habitable? How do you deal with the people who are living there now? There's this attitude that geoengineering is the easy solution because it's "only" a technical and engineering problem, but it isn't. The politics of global geoengineering are just as difficult as the politics of global emissions reduction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:11th hour geoengineering isn't going to be meaningfully impactful. Yes, that's why I'm saying there will be eight figure death tolls (i.e. 100s of millions). I'm not saying it's going to bypass the political problem, the advantage is that the effect will be faster. If billions of deaths are on the table the question of 'what about the countries less affected by climate change' stops becoming relevant. I think that's bleak enough to force decisive action. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
How badly will central Europe be hit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, that's why I'm saying there will be eight figure death tolls (i.e. 100s of millions). I'm not saying it's going to bypass the political problem, the advantage is that the effect will be faster. I think you're drastically underestimating how quickly people will begin to view the situation as the new normal and geoengineering as a risky move away from the status quo. People will migrate away from flooded coastal areas and farmland will move as old areas become less arable. Trying to revert the climate back to a state that it hasn't existed in for decades is going to have real effects on the people who have already been forced to adapt to the new situation. You're also making the mistake of assuming that everyone will automatically attribute every climate change related death to climate change. People aren't going to say "oh, all those people died because of climate change." They're going to say "oh, all those people died when Miami flooded" or "oh, all those people died in the Great European Migration Crisis." We're talking about a lot of individual events happening slowly over a very long period of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:15
|
|