The Climate Change Thread: Or The Perils of Carbon

[Great Minarchistan]

I work and study in conservation. We're doomed unless we nuke China and make eating cow meat illegal. Although, when I say "we", what I really mean is people who don't have access to conserved groundwater, people who refuse to not like on the coast, and people who live in severely polluted cities. Also people who already live in hot areas and refuse to move. And this will still be a slow burn. The closest "oh shit" moment coming up is when the water table in central USA dries up--which it will between 2030 and 2050. And then food prices of many many many items will skyrocket worldwide.

The earth will continue to heat up even if we go 100% clean, but at the rate we're going its gonna get fast and furious. However, an interesting thing to note is we might actually go through a brief (5-15 years max) period where it gets significantly cooler because of all the extra water and the way the ocean current is affected by global climate change. In fact the western parts of Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal are expected to get colder winters and hotter summers--with some areas getting colder all seasons.

Edit: Oops, forgot about the antibiotic crisis. The good news is humanity is rapidly heading towards mass extinction due to antibiotic-resistant diseases, starvation, and lack of sperm, as God intended. So if you're into that sort of thing, don't kill yourself yet, the fireworks should start around 2050.

doomer post backed solely by the "credentials" of working in conservation, good shit

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I work and study in conservation. We're doomed unless we nuke China and make eating cow meat illegal. Although, when I say "we", what I really mean is people who don't have access to conserved groundwater, people who refuse to not like on the coast, and people who live in severely polluted cities. Also people who already live in hot areas and refuse to move. And this will still be a slow burn. The closest "oh shit" moment coming up is when the water table in central USA dries up--which it will between 2030 and 2050. And then food prices of many many many items will skyrocket worldwide.

The earth will continue to heat up even if we go 100% clean, but at the rate we're going its gonna get fast and furious. However, an interesting thing to note is we might actually go through a brief (5-15 years max) period where it gets significantly cooler because of all the extra water and the way the ocean current is affected by global climate change. In fact the western parts of Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal are expected to get colder winters and hotter summers--with some areas getting colder all seasons.

Edit: Oops, forgot about the antibiotic crisis. The good news is humanity is rapidly heading towards mass extinction due to antibiotic-resistant diseases, starvation, and lack of sperm, as God intended. So if you're into that sort of thing, don't kill yourself yet, the fireworks should start around 2050.

doomer post backed solely by the "credentials" of working in conservation, good shit

As discussed in one of my previous threads, we almost certainly have a reason to be doomers.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Meanwhile in Brazil, that fuckwit Bolsanaro is accusing scientists of lying about the extent of deforestation, and the increase since he was unfortunately elected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49052360

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Meanwhile in Brazil, that fuckwit Bolsanaro is accusing scientists of lying about the extent of deforestation, and the increase since he was unfortunately elected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49052360

He’s probably in the pocket of those businesses that contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon.

[Bluelight-R006]

Meanwhile in Brazil, that fuckwit Bolsanaro is accusing scientists of lying about the extent of deforestation, and the increase since he was unfortunately elected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49052360

Hmm... this sounds suspicious...

When you try, but you don’t succeed.

[EastKekistan]

Meanwhile in Brazil, that fuckwit Bolsanaro is accusing scientists of lying about the extent of deforestation, and the increase since he was unfortunately elected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49052360

Both soc libs and soc trads can be extremely harmful.

[Recidivism]

I work and study in conservation. We're doomed unless we nuke China and make eating cow meat illegal. Although, when I say "we", what I really mean is people who don't have access to conserved groundwater, people who refuse to not like on the coast, and people who live in severely polluted cities. Also people who already live in hot areas and refuse to move. And this will still be a slow burn. The closest "oh shit" moment coming up is when the water table in central USA dries up--which it will between 2030 and 2050. And then food prices of many many many items will skyrocket worldwide.

The earth will continue to heat up even if we go 100% clean, but at the rate we're going its gonna get fast and furious. However, an interesting thing to note is we might actually go through a brief (5-15 years max) period where it gets significantly cooler because of all the extra water and the way the ocean current is affected by global climate change. In fact the western parts of Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal are expected to get colder winters and hotter summers--with some areas getting colder all seasons.

Edit: Oops, forgot about the antibiotic crisis. The good news is humanity is rapidly heading towards mass extinction due to antibiotic-resistant diseases, starvation, and lack of sperm, as God intended. So if you're into that sort of thing, don't kill yourself yet, the fireworks should start around 2050.

doomer post backed solely by the "credentials" of working in conservation, good shit

How is that not a valid credential?

[Petrolheadia]

doomer post backed solely by the "credentials" of working in conservation, good shit

How is that not a valid credential?

As you can see by multiple failed businesses, having professional credentials does not necessarily mean you're right.

[Salandriagado]

No, side effects like whatever the hell dumping vast quantities of iron into the oceans will do. Side effects like massive initial increases in CO2 levels.

Unfortunately our carbon sequestration tech is not up to snuff.
Ideally we could convert carbon from the atmosphere directly into steel, carbon fiber and other carbon based materials, but I do not think the feasible.

The primary issue is energy generation: it necessarily takes more energy to get the carbon out of the atmosphere and back into how it started than we generated from putting it there in the first place, so unless a large chunk of the grid is already carbon-neutral, sequestration is a losing battle.

[Cekoviu]

Meanwhile in Brazil, that fuckwit Bolsanaro is accusing scientists of lying about the extent of deforestation, and the increase since he was unfortunately elected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49052360

Both soc libs and soc trads can be extremely harmful.

bOtH sIdEs
But seriously, how is this even relevant to the article in the slightest?

[Saiwania]

The primary issue is energy generation: it necessarily takes more energy to get the carbon out of the atmosphere and back into how it started than we generated from putting it there in the first place, so unless a large chunk of the grid is already carbon-neutral, sequestration is a losing battle.

That is arguably the point. Carbon sequestrian is required to make it so the planet won't warm up to the extent it otherwise would, which will require switching to a carbon neutral if not carbon negative energy grid over time as well.

With no sequestration but CO2 being added, the blanket of carbon in the atmosphere keeps building up- which can doom us all.
While with sequestration but CO2 being added, the rate of CO2 buildup could slow down or flatline depending on the amounts added and subtracted annually.
While with sequestration but no CO2 being added any more via fossil fuels, means the damage we've done is being undone gradually over time.

Reaching the last scenario would be the most ideal. Its better to be carbon negative than carbon neutral assuming carbon is still being added on a regular basis. It is a matter of cold hard math. If we manage to take out more CO2 than we put CO2 in, that is what we want. If the opposite is true, it means we got more work to do to fix the problematic track we're on.

As for where all of the extra energy is supposed to come from? I'd suggest Nuclear Fission using Thorium and if it ever becomes ready- Nuclear Fusion.

[Novus America]

Unfortunately our carbon sequestration tech is not up to snuff.
Ideally we could convert carbon from the atmosphere directly into steel, carbon fiber and other carbon based materials, but I do not think the feasible.

The primary issue is energy generation: it necessarily takes more energy to get the carbon out of the atmosphere and back into how it started than we generated from putting it there in the first place, so unless a large chunk of the grid is already carbon-neutral, sequestration is a losing battle.

I concur. Trying to take it out will still pumping it in is counterproductive.
As I said Nixon had a plan to have it solved by 1980. Via 1,000 nuclear reactors.

[Lanoraie II]

Technically we haven't reached our carrying capacity as a whole, but we are quickly approaching that and there are already a ridiculous number of people dying from starvation due to a lack of distribution and compounded by locally dense populations.

It's not racist to point out the fact that it's mainly poor countries in Africa and southwestern Asia contributing to this (even with the higher mortality rates, the net is higher than ideal). It is racist to say that this is due to something inherent to black people, Arabs, and Pakistanis. It's not - the high birth rate has to do with a lack of adequate birth control and sex education, which is difficult to improve because of war in some places, but mainly because of the consequences of Western imperialism. Who would've thought?

But the problem is not 'there are too many people', because we have plenty of room and resources. We are just not sharing those resources equitably. We can handle loads more people, but not at our current consumption. So, I would not call it overpopulation, because that suggests we need less people. We don't, we need to do something about resource consumption. Some cities are overcrowded, yes, but that is also due to a lack of sanitation and infrastructure, not because there are inherently too many people.

While it is not racist to point that out, the overpopulation myth is frequently used by racists to justify all manner of heinous policy proposals. For example, eugenics, taking away the right to have children from poor people, needing violent and destructive wars to cut down population size, hoping for a new plague, all policies aimed at reducing population mainly in Africa. In the west, the overpopulation myth (often glanced from busy shopping malls) is seen as a reason to limit immigration. So, while the overpopulation myth is not inherently racist in and of itself, it is mainly if not exclusive propagated by far-right groups.

We DON'T have "plenty" of resources. Our resources are finite and the amount of people is way, way too much. And it's not a myth either. We don't know our carrying capacity, but we do know we are depleting the world's resources at a faster rate than they can replenish, which would indicate we are over it. Way, way over it. And reducing the population in China, India, and Africa is not racist, as long as it's done through policy and not genocide. Even if we shared resources "equitably", we'd still be consuming far too much. And you seem to be pretty ignorant if you think overpopulation is "propagated" by far-right groups. I take it you've never been to any conference revolving around conservation, human issues, and how to solve them.

Not to mention pretty much nothing long term-bad would come from us reducing our population to 1 billion or less.

[Lanoraie II]

I work and study in conservation. We're doomed unless we nuke China and make eating cow meat illegal. Although, when I say "we", what I really mean is people who don't have access to conserved groundwater, people who refuse to not like on the coast, and people who live in severely polluted cities. Also people who already live in hot areas and refuse to move. And this will still be a slow burn. The closest "oh shit" moment coming up is when the water table in central USA dries up--which it will between 2030 and 2050. And then food prices of many many many items will skyrocket worldwide.

The earth will continue to heat up even if we go 100% clean, but at the rate we're going its gonna get fast and furious. However, an interesting thing to note is we might actually go through a brief (5-15 years max) period where it gets significantly cooler because of all the extra water and the way the ocean current is affected by global climate change. In fact the western parts of Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal are expected to get colder winters and hotter summers--with some areas getting colder all seasons.

Edit: Oops, forgot about the antibiotic crisis. The good news is humanity is rapidly heading towards mass extinction due to antibiotic-resistant diseases, starvation, and lack of sperm, as God intended. So if you're into that sort of thing, don't kill yourself yet, the fireworks should start around 2050.

doomer post backed solely by the "credentials" of working in conservation, good shit

Sure, it's appeal to sort-of authority, but am I wrong? No. There's plenty reason to be doomer if you live in certain areas that thankfully, I don't. Which is why I'm doomer about the rest of the world but bloomer about my own immediate area because we have strong infrastructure designed to protect our wildlife, which is value by pretty much everyone around here regardless of political spectrum.

[Lanoraie II]

We need to find a solution to make things better before it gets to the point that Floridians start moving north as climate refugees. We don't want Floridians moving north, we want to keep them in their peninsula prison, please consider.

LMAO

[Kowani]

But the problem is not 'there are too many people', because we have plenty of room and resources. We are just not sharing those resources equitably. We can handle loads more people, but not at our current consumption. So, I would not call it overpopulation, because that suggests we need less people. We don't, we need to do something about resource consumption. Some cities are overcrowded, yes, but that is also due to a lack of sanitation and infrastructure, not because there are inherently too many people.

While it is not racist to point that out, the overpopulation myth is frequently used by racists to justify all manner of heinous policy proposals. For example, eugenics, taking away the right to have children from poor people, needing violent and destructive wars to cut down population size, hoping for a new plague, all policies aimed at reducing population mainly in Africa. In the west, the overpopulation myth (often glanced from busy shopping malls) is seen as a reason to limit immigration. So, while the overpopulation myth is not inherently racist in and of itself, it is mainly if not exclusive propagated by far-right groups.

We DON'T have "plenty" of resources. Our resources are finite and the amount of people is way, way too much. And it's not a myth either. We don't know our carrying capacity, but we do know we are depleting the world's resources at a faster rate than they can replenish, which would indicate we are over it. Way, way over it. And reducing the population in China, India, and Africa is not racist, as long as it's done through policy and not genocide. Even if we shared resources "equitably", we'd still be consuming far too much. And you seem to be pretty ignorant if you think overpopulation is "propagated" by far-right groups. I take it you've never been to any conference revolving around conservation, human issues, and how to solve them.

Not to mention pretty much nothing long term-bad would come from us reducing our population to 1 billion or less.

Oh, are we pretending overpopulation is a thing again?

[Lanoraie II]

We DON'T have "plenty" of resources. Our resources are finite and the amount of people is way, way too much. And it's not a myth either. We don't know our carrying capacity, but we do know we are depleting the world's resources at a faster rate than they can replenish, which would indicate we are over it. Way, way over it. And reducing the population in China, India, and Africa is not racist, as long as it's done through policy and not genocide. Even if we shared resources "equitably", we'd still be consuming far too much. And you seem to be pretty ignorant if you think overpopulation is "propagated" by far-right groups. I take it you've never been to any conference revolving around conservation, human issues, and how to solve them.

Not to mention pretty much nothing long term-bad would come from us reducing our population to 1 billion or less.

Oh, are we pretending overpopulation is a thing again?

Where's your proof it isn't? It absolutely is. Our resources are finite and depleting at a rapid rate, as I said before. Our current population is not sustainable. And that's a damn fact.

[Kowani]

[background=][/background]

Oh, are we pretending overpopulation is a thing again?

Where's your proof it isn't? It absolutely is. Our resources are finite and depleting at a rapid rate, as I said before. Our current population is not sustainable. And that's a damn fact.

Let us begin with some data. 48% of the world’s population lives in countries with sub replacement fertility rates. Barring economic collapse or the prohibition of contraceptives, this is part of the world is unlikely to change. We shall discount them. Now, we turn to the 52% who are above replacement level. Dropping everywhere. The only countries on that list which had upward trends were Bulgaria and Lichtenstein. And, assuming current trends continue, those rates should keep dropping, and even faster. Extreme poverty, one of the major driving factors in high fertility rates has declined, and access to contraceptives has only increased.

[Neutraligon]

[background=][/background]

Where's your proof it isn't? It absolutely is. Our resources are finite and depleting at a rapid rate, as I said before. Our current population is not sustainable. And that's a damn fact.

Let us begin with some data. 48% of the world’s population lives in countries with sub replacement fertility rates. Barring economic collapse or the prohibition of contraceptives, this is part of the world is unlikely to change. We shall discount them. Now, we turn to the 52% who are above replacement level. Dropping everywhere. The only countries on that list which had upward trends were Bulgaria and Lichtenstein. And, assuming current trends continue, those rates should keep dropping, and even faster. Extreme poverty, one of the major driving factors in high fertility rates has declined, and access to contraceptives has only increased.

Which does not say that we are not overpopulated, although overpopulation on a world wide basis is rather difficult to measure.

[Kowani]

[background=][/background]
Let us begin with some data. 48% of the world’s population lives in countries with sub replacement fertility rates. Barring economic collapse or the prohibition of contraceptives, this is part of the world is unlikely to change. We shall discount them. Now, we turn to the 52% who are above replacement level. Dropping everywhere. The only countries on that list which had upward trends were Bulgaria and Lichtenstein. And, assuming current trends continue, those rates should keep dropping, and even faster. Extreme poverty, one of the major driving factors in high fertility rates has declined, and access to contraceptives has only increased.

Which does not say that we are not overpopulated, although overpopulation on a world wide basis is rather difficult to measure.

The secondary point is this. If we were overpopulated, we would be having a shortage of either space (we’re not) or resources. So, let’s focus on the second one. We seem to be good on everything. Except water. That might be a problem. (Now, one could be pedantic, and explain that that’s not caused by overpopulation, but that’s not really the point, nor is it true everywhere.) So, we come to other solutions. And we have them. Mind you, the transition won’t be easy, and it definitely won’t allow us to exist in necessarily the same way.

[Pacomia]

Aight, who said climate change was fake? I see 7 people up there.

[Lanoraie II]

[background=][/background]

Where's your proof it isn't? It absolutely is. Our resources are finite and depleting at a rapid rate, as I said before. Our current population is not sustainable. And that's a damn fact.

Let us begin with some data. 48% of the world’s population lives in countries with sub replacement fertility rates. Barring economic collapse or the prohibition of contraceptives, this is part of the world is unlikely to change. We shall discount them. Now, we turn to the 52% who are above replacement level. Dropping everywhere. The only countries on that list which had upward trends were Bulgaria and Lichtenstein. And, assuming current trends continue, those rates should keep dropping, and even faster. Extreme poverty, one of the major driving factors in high fertility rates has declined, and access to contraceptives has only increased.

That doesn't mean that because it's dropping, it's sustainable. Your data doesn't really mean anything other than "the population is increasing at a slightly slower rate than it was 20 years ago". Which doesn't help when we have 7+ billion people roaming the earth.

Which does not say that we are not overpopulated, although overpopulation on a world wide basis is rather difficult to measure.

The secondary point is this. If we were overpopulated, we would be having a shortage of either space (we’re not) or resources. So, let’s focus on the second one. We seem to be good on everything. Except water. That might be a problem. (Now, one could be pedantic, and explain that that’s not caused by overpopulation, but that’s not really the point, nor is it true everywhere.) So, we come to other solutions. And we have them. Mind you, the transition won’t be easy, and it definitely won’t allow us to exist in necessarily the same way.

We are not good on food, holy hell. If you knew anything about conservation, you would know we are running out of many sources of food at a rapid rate, i.e. fish, which a good chunk of the world lives on. The amount of people simply existing with food and water requirements creates a massive strain both on infrastructure and the environment. As for water, it seems you missed my earlier post talking about the midwest water table, which feeds (if I recall correctly) 1/3 of the world. That's going to dry up by 2050. Because we aren't sustainable. Because we use too much resources. And then a huge portion of the world's wheat, vegetables, etc. is going to be gone in an instant. For more evidence that we are not sustainable, let's take a look at theColorado river, which used to go all the way to the ocean, and now doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even reach Mexico anymore. Why? Because we're using too much water, mostly in agriculture, to hydrate the food we consume. We have negatively changed the landscape of an entire river, and deprived Mexico of its access to freshwater, thanks to our overconsumption.

We. Are. Not. Sustainable. There are way too many humans as is.

[Novus America]

Which does not say that we are not overpopulated, although overpopulation on a world wide basis is rather difficult to measure.

The secondary point is this. If we were overpopulated, we would be having a shortage of either space (we’re not) or resources. So, let’s focus on the second one. We seem to be good on everything. Except water. That might be a problem. (Now, one could be pedantic, and explain that that’s not caused by overpopulation, but that’s not really the point, nor is it true everywhere.) So, we come to other solutions. And we have them. Mind you, the transition won’t be easy, and it definitely won’t allow us to exist in necessarily the same way.

Nuclear which is ideally suited for desalination solves the water issue, at least in coastal areas.

[Kowani]

[background=][/background]
Let us begin with some data. 48% of the world’s population lives in countries with sub replacement fertility rates. Barring economic collapse or the prohibition of contraceptives, this is part of the world is unlikely to change. We shall discount them. Now, we turn to the 52% who are above replacement level. Dropping everywhere. The only countries on that list which had upward trends were Bulgaria and Lichtenstein. And, assuming current trends continue, those rates should keep dropping, and even faster. Extreme poverty, one of the major driving factors in high fertility rates has declined, and access to contraceptives has only increased.

That doesn't mean that because it's dropping, it's sustainable. Your data doesn't really mean anything other than "the population is increasing at a slightly slower rate than it was 20 years ago". Which doesn't help when we have 7+ billion people roaming the earth.

Point seems to have been missed. So, let’s go with some basic terms. The first being replacement level. If you don’t know what that is, we’re not going anywhere.

[Lanoraie II]

That doesn't mean that because it's dropping, it's sustainable. Your data doesn't really mean anything other than "the population is increasing at a slightly slower rate than it was 20 years ago". Which doesn't help when we have 7+ billion people roaming the earth.

Point seems to have been missed. So, let’s go with some basic terms. The first being replacement level. If you don’t know what that is, we’re not going anywhere.

OF course I know what it is, and replacement level still doesn't matter. You can stop talking down to me like a child, especially since I know more about this than you.