Life after a Global Ecological Collapse

[Samudera Darussalam]

Yeah we’re looking at not having enough fucking oxygen to breathe so

Press F for literally all of us

F

[Aureumterra]

Whoops that's bleak

To be fair, world of the future currently looks pretty bleak.

Really depends on the context, that statement, overall the world is roughly in a better situation right now than at any point in history

Not everyone who believes climate change thinks the world will end by 2030 or that the green new deal is the best way to solve everything, really not

Also calling Rojava a marxist

Fucking lol. The people pushing this agenda ARE Marxists, it's part of their plan to attack capitalism, this is pretty evident on how much they attack corporations for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Of course I don't expect some far left socialist like you to understand.

I have to give it to you, you aren’t actually the first person to call me socialist here

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

To be fair, world of the future currently looks pretty bleak.

Yeah we’re looking at not having enough fucking oxygen to breathe so

I’d say we have to worry more about having enough clean water to drink and food to eat before we have to worry about that.

[Surkiea II]

Fucking lol. The people pushing this agenda ARE Marxists, it's part of their plan to attack capitalism, this is pretty evident on how much they attack corporations for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Of course I don't expect some far left socialist like you to understand.

Aureumterra is now a far left socialist? That's funny.

No, they are not marxists.

Well considering how much he loves pushing left-wing agendas, yeah he is.

And they are Marxists.

Fucking lol. The people pushing this agenda ARE Marxists, it's part of their plan to attack capitalism, this is pretty evident on how much they attack corporations for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Of course I don't expect some far left socialist like you to understand.

This conspiracy theory has too many steps to be real. First off the democrats, the so called left party, are not anywhere near being marxists. They receive thousands of dollars a year in donations from wall street and support open immigration that benefits corporations. They're just as plutocrat controlled as the GOP. If there truly was an attack on corporate america, it would be put down immediately

Second off, not every one who disagrees with you is a damn commie. Many of us are libertarians which if anything makes us farther from stalin or mao than you are

Considering that they have actual communists like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, AOC and Illhan Omar, the DNC are a bunch of far left radicals. And all they do is attack corporations and capitalism.

Stop acting like a damn commie and I won't call you one.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Yeah we’re looking at not having enough fucking oxygen to breathe so

I’d say we have to worry more about having enough clean water to drink and food to before we have to worry about that.

Food, clean water, new spaces for habitations if the coastal areas are going underwater.....

[Rojava Free State]

To be fair, world of the future currently looks pretty bleak.

Really depends on the context, that statement, overall the world is roughly in a better situation right now than at any point in history

Fucking lol. The people pushing this agenda ARE Marxists, it's part of their plan to attack capitalism, this is pretty evident on how much they attack corporations for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Of course I don't expect some far left socialist like you to understand.

I have to give it to you, you aren’t actually the first person to call me socialist here

I couldn't disagree more with your first statement. I think we've had far better times in history than this current century, and while no time has been perfect and this period is better than most of history, not only is it worse now than even 20 years ago, but it's going back to how things used to be

[True Refuge]

Aureumterra is now a far left socialist? That's funny.

No, they are not marxists.

Well considering how much he loves pushing left-wing agendas, yeah he is.

And they are Marxists.

This conspiracy theory has too many steps to be real. First off the democrats, the so called left party, are not anywhere near being marxists. They receive thousands of dollars a year in donations from wall street and support open immigration that benefits corporations. They're just as plutocrat controlled as the GOP. If there truly was an attack on corporate america, it would be put down immediately

Second off, not every one who disagrees with you is a damn commie. Many of us are libertarians which if anything makes us farther from stalin or mao than you are

Considering that they have actual communists like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, AOC and Illhan Omar, the DNC are a bunch of far left radicals. And all they do is attack corporations and capitalism.

Stop acting like a damn commie and I won't call you one.

This is like Ben Shapiro calling Andrew Neil a leftie. Your sense of political ideology is wack.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

To be fair, world of the future currently looks pretty bleak.

Really depends on the context, that statement, overall the world is roughly in a better situation right now than at any point in history

Maybe right now, but things look to get progressively worse than things are now.

[Rojava Free State]

Aureumterra is now a far left socialist? That's funny.

No, they are not marxists.

Well considering how much he loves pushing left-wing agendas, yeah he is.

And they are Marxists.

This conspiracy theory has too many steps to be real. First off the democrats, the so called left party, are not anywhere near being marxists. They receive thousands of dollars a year in donations from wall street and support open immigration that benefits corporations. They're just as plutocrat controlled as the GOP. If there truly was an attack on corporate america, it would be put down immediately

Second off, not every one who disagrees with you is a damn commie. Many of us are libertarians which if anything makes us farther from stalin or mao than you are

Considering that they have actual communists like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, AOC and Illhan Omar, the DNC are a bunch of far left radicals. And all they do is attack corporations and capitalism.

Stop acting like a damn commie and I won't call you one.

Calling any of those people communists is like calling ted Cruz a nazi. Nice way to jump the gun. Also they have next to no power in their party, so I don't even know why we talk about them

As for attacking corporations, I think the corporations have done plenty to demonize themselves these last few years (automation, outsourcing, using illegal immigrant labor, lobbying both parties to relax anti trust laws and give tax breaks). You're probably one of the last people on both the right and the left defending these greedy fat cat crooks who don't give a dead moose's last shit about the American people. That doesn't make me a communist. It makes me legitimately outraged.

[True Refuge]

Really depends on the context, that statement, overall the world is roughly in a better situation right now than at any point in history

Maybe right now, but things look to get progressively worse than things are now.

Really depends on what metrics you look at.

Looks like we're doing good, but really it's just the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Holy cow, mate, there is no scientific evidence for human-caused climate change! Such a thing is literally impossible, since we weren't collecting data before the late 1800s, so we have no reason to believe that any minor climate fluctuations aren't perfectly natural. In fact, we have quite a few reasons for believing that human-caused emissions have practically no effect on climate change. If we calculate every ounce of fossil fuels burned by humanity, (as accounted by "The Guardian," so there is no bias towards my stance, and likely substantial bias away from it) it would come out to about 1% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And even if we ignore that, it is a known scientific fact that greater concentrations of CO2 decrease its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas at an exponential rate. But of course, the government and the all-but-state-run media have a different agenda, so we don't hear any of this, and instead get this myth of scientific consensus and human-caused climate change as a definite fact. It really ticks me off that people think that the methods which have brought about the most spectacular advances in human civilization are destroying the planet.

Watch potholer54 before you make a fool out of yourself. Or even better, review the relevant scientific literature on skepticalscience.com that does prove human-induced climate change is a fact. And you should know that certain substances are very potent even in small quantities, as is the case with nerve gases or certain toxins. Try ingesting just 1.3 nanograms of undiluted pure botulotoxin and then count how fast it will manifest itself within your body. I bet you couldn't, because it would kill you in a near instant. So don't spread drivel that 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere is "harmless" unless you have proven otherwise through the scientifc method.

[Kowani]

Maybe right now, but things look to get progressively worse than things are now.

Really depends on what metrics you look at.

Looks like we're doing good, but really it's just the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Well…no. Extreme poverty has dropped, we’re living longer, malnutrition has dropped, War happens at a lower rate than since we were cavemen…

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yeah we’re looking at not having enough fucking oxygen to breathe so

I’d say we have to worry more about having enough clean water to drink and food to eat before we have to worry about that.

If the Amazon want burning the fuck down I’d say yeah

[Antityranicals]

Look. Science is impossible in this situation, given the obvious lack of control data. We weren't measuring before people were burning fossil fuels, so there's no data without fossil fuels. The best you can hope to come up with is a "the Earth is warming, we don't know why." Fossil fuel emissions is a hypothesis at best. What we DO have vague data on is that the earth warmed significantly about 1,000 years ago, increasing crop yields, and not causing a "global ecological collapse."

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Aureumterra is now a far left socialist? That's funny.

No, they are not marxists.

Well considering how much he loves pushing left-wing agendas, yeah he is.

And they are Marxists.

This conspiracy theory has too many steps to be real. First off the democrats, the so called left party, are not anywhere near being marxists. They receive thousands of dollars a year in donations from wall street and support open immigration that benefits corporations. They're just as plutocrat controlled as the GOP. If there truly was an attack on corporate america, it would be put down immediately

Second off, not every one who disagrees with you is a damn commie. Many of us are libertarians which if anything makes us farther from stalin or mao than you are

Considering that they have actual communists like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, AOC and Illhan Omar, the DNC are a bunch of far left radicals. And all they do is attack corporations and capitalism.

Stop acting like a damn commie and I won't call you one.

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]"

I haven't seen any of the figures you've mentioned calling for the adoption of the above policies, nor did anyone within this thread call for a stateless, moneyless, or classless society, not even a USSR-style centrally planned economy. Perhaps you should drop the redbaiting and contribute something constructive to this discussion instead of accusing everyone who doesn't agree with your views of "gommunism". I don't call you a Nazi for being a conservative, and neither should you smear others as "communists" only because they happen to be to the left of Ayn Rand and Augusto Pinochet.

[Kowani]

Look. Science is impossible in this situation, given the obvious lack of control data. We weren't measuring before people were burning fossil fuels, so there's no data without fossil fuels. The best you can hope to come up with is a "the Earth is warming, we don't know why." Fossil fuel emissions is a hypothesis at best. What we DO have vague data on is that the earth warmed significantly about 1,000 years ago, increasing crop yields, and not causing a "global ecological collapse."

Satan’s balls, that’s not how science works.

[True Refuge]

Really depends on what metrics you look at.

Looks like we're doing good, but really it's just the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Well…no. Extreme poverty has dropped, we’re living longer, malnutrition has dropped, War happens at a lower rate than since we were cavemen…

No one except anarcho-primitivists think we had it better in caveman times. It's better to look at the path of our society throughout

There are quite a few Western nations on the brink of recession again (US, UK, and Australia being some examples), and we have situations like huge amounts of people living paycheque to paycheque (original report here)*. Not everyone is benefiting.

Personally, I think we are marginally better off due to technological advances offsetting financial situations.

*Admittedly, not a super-large sample size or wide demographic, but the report is still indicative of a problem.

[US-SSR]

Solitary, nasty, brutish and short.

[Kowani]

Well…no. Extreme poverty has dropped, we’re living longer, malnutrition has dropped, War happens at a lower rate than since we were cavemen…

No one except anarcho-primitivists think we had it better in caveman times. It's better to look at the path of our society throughout

There are quite a few Western nations on the brink of recession again (US, UK, and Australia being some examples), and we have situations like huge amounts of people living paycheque to paycheque (original report here). Not everyone is benefiting.

Personally, I think we are marginally better off due to technological advances offsetting financial situations.

Well, yeah. I’m not claiming we have it great. But “marginally” is too small a qualifier. We’re quite a lot better off.

[True Refuge]

Look. Science is impossible in this situation, given the obvious lack of control data. We weren't measuring before people were burning fossil fuels, so there's no data without fossil fuels. The best you can hope to come up with is a "the Earth is warming, we don't know why." Fossil fuel emissions is a hypothesis at best. What we DO have vague data on is that the earth warmed significantly about 1,000 years ago, increasing crop yields, and not causing a "global ecological collapse."

Temperature of Earth from 20,000 BCE to present.

You're ignoring evidence being given to you.

No, what you are saying is "screw your actual concrete evidence, I can hide my preconceived notions behind pseudoscience!"

I'd like a response to this please.

Pretty easy to say that when your position is unfalsifiable.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[True Refuge]

No one except anarcho-primitivists think we had it better in caveman times. It's better to look at the path of our society throughout

There are quite a few Western nations on the brink of recession again (US, UK, and Australia being some examples), and we have situations like huge amounts of people living paycheque to paycheque (original report here). Not everyone is benefiting.

Personally, I think we are marginally better off due to technological advances offsetting financial situations.

Well, yeah. I’m not claiming we have it great. But “marginally” is too small a qualifier. We’re quite a lot better off.

I'm probably letting the dire nature of the future affect my conclusions too much, so you're probably right, to be honest. I'm not old enough to remember polio or anything like that firsthand, so I'm not as acutely aware of the struggles of the 20th century as I could be.

[Surkiea II]

Calling any of those people communists is like calling ted Cruz a nazi. Nice way to jump the gun. Also they have next to no power in their party, so I don't even know why we talk about them.

Because they are communists, the fact that you deny this is really telling.

As for attacking corporations, I think the corporations have done plenty to demonize themselves these last few years (automation, outsourcing, using illegal immigrant labor, lobbying both parties to relax anti trust laws and give tax breaks). You're probably one of the last people on both the right and the left defending these greedy fat cat crooks who don't give a dead moose's last shit about the American people. That doesn't make me a communist. It makes me legitimately outraged.

If you're going to keep peddling this far-left, anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist and frankly anti-American horseshit, then I'm going to call you out for being a bloody Bolshevik.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Look. Science is impossible in this situation, given the obvious lack of control data. We weren't measuring before people were burning fossil fuels, so there's no data without fossil fuels. The best you can hope to come up with is a "the Earth is warming, we don't know why." Fossil fuel emissions is a hypothesis at best. What we DO have vague data on is that the earth warmed significantly about 1,000 years ago, increasing crop yields, and not causing a "global ecological collapse."

Except it's not a hypothesis, its a theory, and a very well-established at that. It has been originally proposed as far back as 1896 that burning coal would eventually heat up the planet, and further research done by climatologists over the next few decades only confirmed such hypothesis, effectively transforming it into a scientific theory. Here is an article of the empirical evidence for human involvement in climate change:
"The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.


Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.


Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.


Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.


Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements."
Source: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... ediate.htm
Recommended material for further overview on what the science says about AGW:
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo

[Alien Overlord]

The earth has seen far worse in it's history. Life will go on.

[Cenomannos infecisse santo Insel]

Calling any of those people communists is like calling ted Cruz a nazi. Nice way to jump the gun. Also they have next to no power in their party, so I don't even know why we talk about them.

Because they are communists, the fact that you deny this is really telling.

As for attacking corporations, I think the corporations have done plenty to demonize themselves these last few years (automation, outsourcing, using illegal immigrant labor, lobbying both parties to relax anti trust laws and give tax breaks). You're probably one of the last people on both the right and the left defending these greedy fat cat crooks who don't give a dead moose's last shit about the American people. That doesn't make me a communist. It makes me legitimately outraged.

If you're going to keep peddling this far-left, anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist and frankly anti-American horseshit, then I'm going to call you out for being a bloody Bolshevik.

You clearly don't understand Socialism and Communism. By your logic I would be a Communist because I don't like Capitalism even though i'm a Third Positionist. Hating Capitalism does not make you a Communist, are you stuck in the Cold War era or something? Also they aren't far left, they are only far left in America because of how right winged your political system is. In Europe they would be center-left.