Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

Started by Syt, November 17, 2015, 05:50:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mongers

Quote from: Monoriu on October 08, 2018, 01:16:45 AM
We're fucked. Not because people can't think long-term, but because the nature of the problem ensures that no one and no single government can take ownership.  For each individual and organisation, the optimal solution is to do nothing and hope that everybody else acts.

That's a very convenient line of reasoning and in accurate, because the large majority of people in the developed world can carry on as they wish and not be especially bothered by the consequences of climate change.

The people who are "fucked" are some others, someone where else and in some other time, maybe next year, next decade or next century.

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

PJL

Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
Should have gone full nuclear.

Also, "we're fucked", "glad I don't have kids" etc. What is this, loser hour? Man the fuck up and deal with stuff that our grandparents would have been thrilled to have to deal with compared to crap back then.

Going full nuclear might actually be the only realistic chance that the world avoids catastrophic climate change before 2030.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: The Larch on October 08, 2018, 09:39:25 AM
I am quite sure that, in the future, when the next generations look back, this will be one of the topics that will make them facepalm in a "What the hell were they thinking" kind of way.

Simple - we weren't thinking.  Thinking is passe.  In the US even a prospective Supreme Court justice seals the deal by putting  his emotions on a grotesque display and by making a mockery of the very notion of logical thinking.

I mean sure warming will cost trillions and ultimately millions of deaths.  But the important thing is we really showed those globalists where to stick it!  Any cost is worth paying for that unique pleasure.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Richard Hakluyt

I managed about 10 seconds of Kavanaugh's disgraceful display...................now he is a Supreme Court judge  :(


Maladict

Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
Also, "we're fucked", "glad I don't have kids" etc. What is this, loser hour? Man the fuck up and deal with stuff that our grandparents would have been thrilled to have to deal with compared to crap back then.

I am, not least by not having kids   :)
Still think we're fucked though.

Maladict

28 degrees in mid October, breaking all time records set yesterday and the day before. And the 70s before that.
No wonder people don't care, everyone's enjoying themselves too much.

Zoupa

Stupid question maybe, but how do they recycle the air on the ISS for the 20 years it's been up there?

The tech is obviously there to filter out carbon dioxyde no?

mongers

Quote from: Zoupa on October 13, 2018, 07:45:31 PM
Stupid question maybe, but how do they recycle the air on the ISS for the 20 years it's been up there?

The tech is obviously there to filter out carbon dioxyde no?

Money is no object up there for a couple of tonnes of air, down here you're talking about getting on for a million tonnes of atmosphere for each of the 7* billion of us.



* I'm so old/ behind the times, I've probably half forgotten a recent tipping over into another billion, so it's probably 8 billion? :unsure:
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

garbon

Quote from: Zoupa on October 13, 2018, 07:45:31 PM
Stupid question maybe, but how do they recycle the air on the ISS for the 20 years it's been up there?

The tech is obviously there to filter out carbon dioxyde no?

I found this which suggests you need low humidity environment.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/long_duration_sorbent_testbed
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Richard Hakluyt

The problem of clearing up CO2 emissions is one of scale and cost.

World CO2 emissions due to human activity were just over 36 billion tonnes in 2015. The current cost of removing one tonne of CO2 appears to be around $600 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44396781 ). So $21.6tn to clear up current emissions, roughly a quarter of world GDP.


Tonitrus

Does "human activity" figures generally include breathing, or is it just artificial/industrial emissions?

(actually curious, not a lame troll attempt)

Richard Hakluyt

Not sure; it would be around 2 billion tonnes per annum though.

Of course there is the "natural" carbon cycle which would include emissions by animals.

crazy canuck

New report out saying that the Ocean has absorbed more heat than had been thought.  That has a lot of knock on consequences but one of the more concerning ones is that if we are to stay below 2 degrees of warming we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 25% more than had been estimated.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought





Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2018, 01:53:58 PM
New report out saying that the Ocean has absorbed more heat than had been thought.  That has a lot of knock on consequences but one of the more concerning ones is that if we are to stay below 2 degrees of warming we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 25% more than had been estimated.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought

The climate change debate over the past few decades has been a useful object lesson in the consequences of statistical illiteracy on policy.  Namely that to the extent uncertainty exists about a range of outcomes, that should more often than not prompt a willingness to spend MORE resources to insure against the bad outcome, not less.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson