|
yeah everything would have been fine if trump didn't win, america signed up to accords
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Eddy-Baby posted:yeah everything would have been fine if trump didn't win, Doubt anyone here actually thinks a democratic president would have made meaningful change
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:160 Gt as the upper bound? Schuur & Abbot (2011) perform a survey finding 306 ± 74 Gt cumulative by 2100 : Did you even bother reading your own article? They cite exactly the studies I'm talking about, noting that "Our estimate for the amount of carbon released by 2100 is 1.7–5.2 times larger than those reported in several recent modelling studies", (note that reverse-engineering these multiples gives you roughly the figures I stated). If you really want, I can go ahead and cite another half-dozen more recent modeling studies that give roughly similar results. You've cherry-picked a survey, (which is speculative by its very nature), to get the results you want. But even if you were right it wouldn't make much difference, because you'd still have a scenario that's basically what I described: where Arctic emissions are absolutely dwarfed by human emissions. In any case, the point about RCP8.5 is deeply confused. The very survey you're citing appears to rely on something like RCP8.5 to get that level of Arctic emissions. Yes, adhering to a lower-emissions pathway will reduce the proportions, but because we're talking about a feedback, it will also reduce the amount of Arctic emissions. I can show you models that estimate Arctic emissions under RCP4.5, and they're quite paltry. Less than we'll emit this year. quote:And this is only from one unaccounted for feedback. Much like other climate change deniers and doubters, you sit back and try to pick at and denigrate one feedback at a time while ignoring the cascading effect that they have in tandem. Shall we rehash ESAS methane plumes again so you can pick apart at it? Shall we rehash tropical rainforest carbon sources so we can do the same exercise there? Shall we go over carbon pulses as soil is heated far beyond AR5's land use estimates? Shall we go over the revisions to methane's GWP since AR5? Shall we go over how AR5 calculates ECS? Luckily I don't have to put all feedbacks together in some hopelessly complicated way. Climate science has already done that for me. We have a system for doing that, climate sensitivity modeling, usually in the form of equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS. There is a broad consensus that ECS is around 2.0-4.5 degrees centigrade. This is not restricted to the IPCC; it is the broad consensus. There are some reasons to be skeptical, but they run in both directions: while there are speculated feedbacks that could shift ECS upward, there is also the problem that empirical results show ECS to be too high, and we should be thinking more in the 1.5-1.9 range. However ECS is the best we have, and I prefer to rely on that rather than methane-fueled doomsaying or empirically-driven recklessness. It's bizarre you smear me as a climate change denier or doubter. I adhere to the science. It's your side that's constantly smearing the IPCC, the foremost climate authority on earth, in a sort of mirror image of the actual denialists. There's a kernel of truth there, in that they are fairly conservative, but they're certainly closer to the climate science median than you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
The Clean Power Plan was meaningfully mitigating future harm and Trump's current plans cause more harm. Trump's trying to get a 35% tariff on imported solar panels and if that causes a reduction in install rate then that's yet another way even a neutered Democratic president with a Republican congress would be meaningfully better than our current administration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Doubt anyone here actually thinks a democratic president would have made meaningful change It'd have been comparatively easier to conduct the research that will document the environmental catastrophe we're facing, without the decades of damage inflicted through sabotage of current studies and academic mechanisms, and the shift in institutional inertia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It'd have been comparatively easier to conduct the research that will document the environmental catastrophe we're facing, without the decades of damage inflicted through sabotage of current studies and academic mechanisms, and the shift in institutional inertia. But i doubt we would have done anything to fix the climate under Hillary anyways 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:But i doubt we would have done anything to fix the climate under Hillary anyways Yeah but that's because "fixing the climate" is a magical answer. Our options are along a sliding scale of harms and we long ago passed up the option of doing no harm. But we still have choices to make between more and less harm. Even if we had global luxury gay space eco-communism today we couldn't "fix the climate" anymore than reseeding a forest "fixes" the old growth forest cut for timber. But like the obligation to manage new growth forests rather than leaving the land barren, we have a responsibility to act to try and limit future harms even if we've lost something we can never revive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
At least the EPA would have continued to meaningfully exist. Ditto the department of the interior. Ditto the NWS and NOAA. Ditto the State Department and any international cooperation. Of course no magic bullet would have popped into existence, but we would have not effectively eliminated our chances entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Remember when we were all like 1.5 C is the max target? Now the estimates are 2-4.5? Man, simpler times. Given that 4.5C is now like on the table as a realistic outcome, what kind of climatepocalypse does that actually represent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
hooman posted:Remember when we were all like 1.5 C is the max target? https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf WAIC collapse and sea level rise surge over years rather than decades, meltwater pulses shutting down the thermohaline circulation, superstorms, extreme heatwaves in continental interiors, ecosystem annihilation as flora and fauna are too slow to keep up with the shifting temperature bands, etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
i inflate my winsome crest
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
I'm just looking forward to saying "I told you so" until I expire of climate death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
hooman posted:Remember when we were all like 1.5 C is the max target? The extinction of most, if not all, life on earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Rime posted:The extinction of most, if not all, life on earth. Oh for god's sake. Why not just claim it will cause the sun to explode? It'd be about as likely. The actual numbers for predicted extinctions range from 0-54%. The mean for a 4.5 C warming scenario, according to this study, is 16% of species. There is absolutely no one predicting total extinction. The sad thing though is that the people in this thread are going to believe you, rather than the scientists. They're as bad as the denialists. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Oh for god's sake. Why not just claim it will cause the sun to explode? It'd be about as likely. Also Thug Lessons posted:The actual numbers for predicted extinctions range from 0-54% Haha drat, you're pretty dumb because you don't seem to understand concepts like 'the food chain' or 'the circle of life'. What kind of broken brain do you have where you think even 1% loss of life isn't going to have repercussions on the surrounding environment, let alone 54%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Oh for god's sake. Why not just claim it will cause the sun to explode? It'd be about as likely. The actual numbers for predicted extinctions range from 0-54%. The mean for a 4.5 C warming scenario, according to this study, is 16% of species. There is absolutely no one predicting total extinction. Pro-tip: if you're looking at just the extinction risk percentages, you're doing it wrong. From the very study you linked: quote:Here, I provide a global assessment of climate change–induced extinction risks and the factors that influence them. However, I emphasize that extinction risks are likely much smaller than the total number of species influenced by climate change. Even species not threatened directly by extinction could experience substantial changes in abundances, distributions, and species interactions, which in turn could affect ecosystems and their services to humans. So yeah, even if "only" 16% of species go fully extinct, poo poo will still be massively, massively hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
See this is what I mean. People will come up with these sorts of complaints but let "actually all life on earth is going extinct" pass without comment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm just looking forward to saying "I told you so" until I expire of climate death. I look forward to the denier hunting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
If someone can't immediately understand that 4.5 degrees of warming will lead to a catastrophic carbon feedback cycle which will wipe out most life, and needs to have this explained, there is no helping them. "But, Officer, I just don't understand how me ramming that other car at high speed pushed it off the cliff. Their brakes should have saved them regardless of my actions! "
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Rime posted:If someone can't immediately understand that 4.5 degrees of warming will lead to a catastrophic carbon feedback cycle which will wipe out most life, and needs to have this explained, there is no helping them. The main problem with this supposition is that most climate experts don't believe it. It's folk wisdom, not science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:See this is what I mean. People will come up with these sorts of complaints but let "actually all life on earth is going extinct" pass without comment. "you said you turned the light off, and i saw you flip the switch and the light went away.. but this multimeter connected to the light fixture still detects a residual current! The light is still technically on!! Checkmate, fools!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Rime posted:The extinction of most, if not all, life on earth. You need to at least qualify this with “complex life” because simple life survived the late heavy bombardment. Complex life survived the K-T extinction. Life will survive on earth no matter what we do to it with our current level of technology. The Earth may no longer be compatible with human life, but even that is a pretty hot take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:"you said you turned the light off, and i saw you flip the switch and the light went away.. but this multimeter connected to the light fixture still detects a residual current! The light is still technically on!! If you're going to make these claims, support them. I've already made a good-faith effort to show that the mean expected extinction rate is going to be ~16%, perhaps as high as 54% in the worst case. If you want to claim that it's going to create a cascading extinction event that reaches 99%, then at least cite something to support this. Otherwise you're just giving your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You need to at least qualify this with “complex life” because simple life survived the late heavy bombardment. Complex life survived the K-T extinction. Life will survive on earth no matter what we do to it with our current level of technology. Who is served by this kind of pedantry, most people think that "the vast majority of natural life that we can observe with the naked eye (and that aren't considered pests) is dead" is pretty important even if it doesn't literally mean the extinction of multicellular life
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
We’re discussing science, hyperbole is counter productive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:See this is what I mean. People will come up with these sorts of complaints but let "actually all life on earth is going extinct" pass without comment. Someone says "God dammit, we're all hosed now!" This is called "hyperbole". You respond with, "No you see, this paper says only up to 54% of us are hosed, and the mean number is actually 16%." This is called "being an insufferable, pedantic rear end in a top hat".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
I mean this is just absurd. Even if we could imagine the extremely remote possibility that terrestrial mammals couldn't survive climate change, despite having survived two or three mass extinctions already, does anyone really believe that climate change is going to extinct all plants? How would that even work? These pronouncements are just absurd, and no one is backing them up with evidence, but y'all keep letting them get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I mean this is just absurd. Even if we could imagine the extremely remote possibility that terrestrial mammals couldn't survive climate change, despite having survived two or three mass extinctions already, does anyone really believe that climate change is going to extinct all plants? How would that even work? These pronouncements are just absurd, and no one is backing them up with evidence, but y'all keep letting them get away with it. Yeah and I mean don't forget about all the bacteria that are going to survive
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Someone says "God dammit, we're all hosed now!" I definitely don't care if anyone likes it or not. Maybe you find citing studies pedantic and insufferable, but from my perspective the science is crucial. It's the only tool we have to understand what's happening to our planet. And I find the endless doom-mongering this thread engages in both intensely annoying and completely useless, especially when it's in response to serious questions like "What does a planet that's 4.5 C warmer look like?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I definitely don't care if anyone likes it or not. Maybe you find citing studies pedantic and insufferable, but from my perspective the science is crucial. It's the only tool we have to understand what's happening to our planet. And I find the endless doom-mongering this thread engages in both intensely annoying and completely useless, especially when it's in response to serious questions like "What does a planet that's 4.5 C warmer look like?" Strawman. We all know that science is crucial. We are just aware that this is a comedy forum, and the occasional hyperbole or dumb joke is fine. For example, when I post "are we dead yet" I don't actually mean I want us to all die. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
He wasn't even joking though? He clarified later that he literally does believe most or all life on earth is going extinct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Also you were naive/ignorant as gently caress if you ever thought +1.5C was the upper bound for warming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
This is a weird discussion. We can all agree that 4.5C warming in a short time scale likely means the end of modern industrialized society and the death of billions. It's not interesting to speculate how many stragglers are left afterwards and what they'll be eating (it's rats). The bigger issue is we don't really know whether this happens or not at 2C short-term warming, which is part of the reason why 2C warming was hand-wavingly identified as the maximum allowed temperature rise. Maybe humanity get's lucky but all those Arctic ice sheet extent plots aren't encouraging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:This is a weird discussion. We can all agree that 4.5C warming in a short time scale likely means the end of modern industrialized society and the death of billions. I don't think we actually all agree to that. I think we can have +4.5C, the death of billions and not have the end of modern industrialized society. Society will certainly be disrupted and industries will have to change but if anything humans will rely on industrial activity more and more not less and less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
That world sounds like it'll suck, don't save for retirement and have fun now! Sorry if I'm a bit pessimistic about life in the future being worth living considering we're tearing ourselves apart over what will shortly seem very trivial
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
I get a feeling that in a century this era of history is going to be looked on in extremely negative terms. Granted, in a perverse egocentric way, it might be more welcoming for some if industrialized society would end, then our great grandchildren wouldn't be there curse us for destroying the world. Anyway, we do have the technology to (some of us) to survive and industrial civilization almost certainly would continue, it is just the quality of life is going to drop into the toilet. Most people are probably going to send their lives in a fortified building watching a screen and eating heavily processed foods (guess who this sounds like). The big difference to today is that is about as good as life is going to get. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Of course later generations will hate us. We knew what was going to happen and screwed them anyways. They will be perfectly entitled to curse our names.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
call to action posted:That world sounds like it'll suck, don't save for retirement and have fun now! Sorry if I'm a bit pessimistic about life in the future being worth living considering we're tearing ourselves apart over what will shortly seem very trivial Just the opposite: save/hoard as much as you can now. You'll need the money later to be able to afford increasingly more scarce resources and habitable/safe areas. (While I think poo poo will be hosed in the future, I doubt we will ever reach a point where money will stop mattering.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Granted, it depends on your philosophy in life and what type of world you can accept. Anyway, at least at this point we have the technology to survive...just probably not everyone. So yeah money, status, and power are all going to still be there just it a more aggressive and vertical way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think we actually all agree to that. I think we can have +4.5C, the death of billions and not have the end of modern industrialized society. Society will certainly be disrupted and industries will have to change but if anything humans will rely on industrial activity more and more not less and less. Yeah, I definitely don't agree with that. You can't actually predict what effect 4.5C warming would have on society; you can only outline risks. Humans are actually god-awful at predicting the course of history. I'm reading a great book about it right now, Future Babble by Dan Gardner. When you ask experts to predict major economic, social and political events they do no better on aggregate than random chance, and they routinely get beaten by chimps or obviously-spurious methods like "predict everything stays the same". This current wave of doomerism, millenarianism, collapse theory, whatever you want to call it, isn't based on evidence – no such evidence does or ever could exist – but because the specter of the apocalypse looms large in contemporary culture. And it's absolutely worth challenging, because the only way we're going to have a good Anthropocene is if people believe in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:59
|
|