-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Report by IPCC: We have roughly 10 years to get climate change under control
- Thread starter Ottaro
- Start date
I don't see us surviving this, to be honest. You'd need some sort of authoritarian technocracy to make progress on the scale that is needed, since the division of powers favors denialists and the nature of elections means even people who believe in it only take half-measures (see: the Trudeau government).
we fucked
we fucked
How do you think the western world will react to large waves of immigration from poorer countries?
Hint: look no further than Brexit and Trump.
And that's just one aspect we'll face. Then there's massive crop failures, a dramatic rise in fires, more frequent devastating storms, salination of coastal water aquifers due to sea level rise, etc etc etc.
So it is the same, just the way for how long you look at it is different. Makes the fact that a long term prediction is even harder than a short term prediction not invalid.NASA said:
No the concept of improving technology isn't that hard to grasp. It doesn't explain why all reports/studies differ. I assume that coming up with numbers is a way to make your report look more spectacular
I feel sorry for the kids. We've known about the potential for unparalleled catastrophe with unfettered climate change for some time now.
I think it will be fine. Trump isn't permanent. Even if we got climate change under control today, or even 5 years ago, some parts of the planet weren't going to be human friendly anyway. Qatar is gone and so parts of Arizona and Nevada. The goal at this point is to minimize the damage that will occur.
You're looking at this as a very American angle. It doesn't matter if America tanks, really, because there's plenty to pick up the slack. You should be looking at a global stage where folks can live, farm, and produce. All these doomsday scenarios aren't 20-years-away, but actually over a century, and today's politics will not be tomorrows.
Pretty much, I do wonder though. Their inaction puts their children and decendents in danger, so what is the hold up? Money? Power?
You guys just decrying Republicans know that we've been aware of this for 40 years right?
Your black and white Republican bad Democrat good view is part of the reason we're in this mess. We need fundamental and structural change to address this on an international scale, not to hope when the Dems come back into power they magically fix a problem they haven't been much interested in before.
Your black and white Republican bad Democrat good view is part of the reason we're in this mess. We need fundamental and structural change to address this on an international scale, not to hope when the Dems come back into power they magically fix a problem they haven't been much interested in before.
Are you serious or trolling?
Let me ask you this: can you predict with certainty that on a given day it will be hotter in Florida than in New York?
Does that mean there's no way to tell which place has a warmer climate?
The IPCC doesn't do first hand research. What you see is is the combination of hundreds upon hundreds of individual reports. Things reported as (high confidence) have agreement amongst multiple scientific groups.
The IPCC didn't make up any numbers, and the general warming trend has been agreed upon for literally decades . No serious scientist questions it.
But yeah I'm sure they're all just catastrophizing scientists looking for headlines.
I'm not even from America. And Brexit is just as good an example. Similar things are happening in other countries. I sincerely hope you're right about politics changing for the better but in my opinion that won't happen unless shit gets dire first.
Not to mention that even if/when they do take back power they'll still have individual states to contend with.
I seriously don't think democracy as we know it is equipped to deal with climate change. It's going to require a kind of political will and sense of unity we haven't seen since after the world wars, and this is coming at a time when the world is more polarized and skeptical of expertise and good governance than it's been in decades.
Oohhh..do I seriously need to answer this?
For thecurrent day:
- Yes, I can tell the weather
- Yes, I can tell the climate
For any given day:
- I can tell the weather with some certainty in the near future
- I can't tell the climate in the far future. I can make predictions, but I would say there is a huge margin of error
I have no idea how you can come to these conclusions while having read the excerpts in the OP. Humanity as we know it is already doomed before we get halfway as far gone as you suggest.
So tell me which will be warmer at 11:00 AM on April 3rd 2019.
User Banned (3 Days): Peddling disinformation and conspiratorial rhetoric
I can't. I can make a prediction that it might be warmer in Florida. Ask me about 2119 and I would say I have no fucking clue, even if I was a climate expert.
I believe in manmade climate change, but I don't know how much is man made and how much is natural. I doubt anyone can say for sure as all you can do is look at statistics.
Just an example: When Saddam Hussein set the oil wells on fire everybody was concerned if that may change the climate. Then the Pinatubo exploded and made the burning oils wells look like campfires in comparison.
Last edited:
Do you believe past long term records have any indication of future events?
Hint: will the sun rise tomorrow?
High chances of sun rising tomorrow. Don't know about one billion years in the future.
Anyway, the solar system, movement of stars and their lifetime is a simple system compared to climate. Even the Maya could predict most of that as it is like a million times less complex than the climate.
Alright, I'll play your silly game.
Here's an extremely complex system:
Will you be alive next week?
20 years ago most climate models were major projections in terms of consequences of specific geographical areas because, shocking, nobody can lock down what happens to major geographical areas after massive warming shifts on a time scale of decades. You need lots and lots of data, and even then you're still taking a shot in the dark because there are so many different systems interconnecting with each other it's gonna be pretty difficult to actually say what is more likely to happen. The east coast might be one of the worst hit in terms of temperature changes in the coming decades, or if the gulf stream slows down (as it's currently doing) and the heat transfer that goes along with it slows down enough some of the warming might be negated by an overall global temperature rise and the lack of heat transfer coming from the gulf stream. Same can be said with a total negation of the gulf stream shut down, some models project that it might actually completely negate a majority of warming for Northern Europe/East coast US in the coming decades, with the added issue of exorbitantly increased rate of sea level rise (gulf stream slowing down is causing the east coast of the US to have the fastest sea level rise compared to anywhere else iirc)
That doesn't mean the models weren't all saying the same thing, which was more drought, warmer oceans, more flooding and all around more extreme patterns and events. Why were all the models saying that? Because it's simple physics, when you have a warmer atmosphere it simply holds more moister.
So, that's a long way of saying the reports have basically been on point for a long time now, and the only thing that's been concurrent is the overall time scale of action in reality is smaller than the previous report reported.
However, 2030 isn't exactly a shocking number, that's been on par with a 1.5c target for years now, so most people thinking this is some ground breaking news probably just aren't really in the know.
People feel like reports are changing every time (and they kinda are), but in the reality most of you are just getting fucking old and are forgetting that it's already nearly 2020. People kinda forget they are living in the "future" of some of the reports which talked about climate risk increasing. And when you have reports of "hot earth" scenarios scaring the shit out of people thinking it's already "game over", it doesn't exactly help the narrative that there is still lots of ways to mitigate future damage.
People need to think of climate change targets like the richter scale. Every tenth of degree in reality is exponentially worse than the previous one. 1.5c is a far cry from 3.0c, while it's "doubling" the global temp, the consequences are exponentially worse. Same can be said with a 3.0c Earth and a 4.0c Earth. That means that no matter what the "target" is, you really want to be shooting under it.
When it comes to climate stuff and long term goals/projections, an important rule of thumb is
Last edited:
I often use this one with my super-green friends who have kids, hehe.
Clima is not going to kill people in Europe or the US, the migration wars with people who have to escape inhabitable places on earth will.
This shit is why i do not want to become a parent. I have no faith in the combination of capitalism and politics to be able or even willing to make the necessary changes required to keep climate change even below 2 degrees. I feel it's completely unethical to force life into this world when you know everything is going to shit and tell it to deal with it.
Literally the opposite is true. In regards to weather vs. climate, weather predictions rely on transient, chaotic, and short-lived atmospheric conditions which don't persist long enough for week+ predictions to be very accurate. In contrast, climate modelling uses entirely different sets of data based on longer-term, more stable trends, because what they're trying to predict is not the same thing.
This article goes into some of the details.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...y-next-month-but-we-know-itll-be-hot-all-year
The only thing your posts in this thread indicate is that anything you personally don't understand is suspect and must be made up.
What happens in the future if shit gets fixed then? Will we just have a gap between generations?
I'm not arguing against, just plain curiosity. Perhaps it's more fitting as its own thread?
No, the solution is stop burning coal.
That solves a lot of issues and buys a shit load of time.
Yea but only the poor brown babies who are being born in countries they don't live in and complete genocide of everyone who isn't the people advocating for this. After all, overpopulation is totally an issue and not at all an outdated concept with heavy racial overtones!
Pack it up folks! You heard it here first. Massive Overpopulation isn't an issue. The destruction of the environment, overfishing, grand scale production of food and other life necessities or the destruction of the rain forrest isn't an issue.
And you clearly are a racist if you claim otherwise.
This is just making me want to leave my east coast residence even more. The rise in storm frequency has me incredibly on edge
Too bad the only other environment-agnostic energy source we have that produces nearly enough yield to be useful is nuclear, which is limited and stigmatized to hell and back. And even absent those issues, it would take the majority of those 10 years to get new plants off the ground.
To be serious for a moment, given the timeframe I think it's the best shot we've got. Keep building solar and wind too of course but not exclusively.
Last edited:
Predictions if a hard winter is coming are notoriously failing even if they might have a statistical probabilty of more than 50%
To explain to you why a long term prediction of climate is probably wrong, just an example:
- Climate experts mostly predict a warming of the athmosphere
- Climate experts are pretty much unsure about the impacts it has on the weather (maybe if there will be a huge increase in giant storms)
- Giant storms might (or might not) be responsible for a huge scale deforestation of earth
- A huge scale deforestation will result in extreme climate changes
Also nobody can predict how and if algae will adapt to rising ocean temperature. We might be fucked much sooner if they all die fast. But prediction of ecosystems is probably even harder than prediction of climate.
Another example:
- The rise of sea levels (different distribution of weight, vanishing of ice) might or might not have an impact on continental drifts
- Change in continental drifts might result in a huge increase of volcanic eruption
- The increase would result in less sun hitting earth and the climate cooling down
Climate prediction depends on statistics and using certain models for intrapolation. I doubt that any of these models takes into account nearly all parameters that can influence climate. Rising sea levels might open new ways for currents I am sure nobody could even seriously include in a model in addition to the change caused by rising water temperature.
And that doesn't even include man made changes. Some 30 years we were all poised to die of cancer because of ozone holes covering the whole planet. Nobody can say for sure, but man made changes might have prevented this with a speed nobody expected.
Like 30 years ago? Manhattan won't ever go "underwater", lots of cities already need pumps to get sea water out of areas like subways, and that was before sea level rise.
But the idea that the US will just let their major economical and cultural city sink into the sea is just fantasy.
I guess we're gone. I am so glad I didn't buy that house near downtown Norfolk, VA eight years ago. That place is going to be underwater unless we build dikes or something.