Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[mongers]

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.

[PJL]

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]

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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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

[Maladict]

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]

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?

[garbon]

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

[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]

It's the end of the world as we know it.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.