Climate Change

Oh. Wow thanks.

So. The diference is. The ice age would have been a gradual change that would have given animals and humans time to adapt where as anthropogeolocial change is devasting because of its abruptness.

did I understand corectly?

edited 5th Nov '11 8:10:31 PM by Baff

Perfectly so.

Basically. It's estimated that the onset of a new ice age shouldn't have hit us for 10,000+ years, on the other hand we should be seeing the effects of anthropogenic climate change within the next century.

edited 5th Nov '11 9:14:26 PM by nightwyrm_zero

Yeah, pretty sure not even climate change disbelievers have rejoiced in the "NO MOAR ICE AGE!" perspective.

I'm going to call all of these things what they are- laziness. People stop caring because they're lazy and they like their own status quo, and until reality hits them over the head with a hammer they generally won't lift a finger to change things.

Then they'll make silly arguments like these to justify their laziness. "There are too many things we need to change." "I tried changing something once back in the 70's, it didn't work/that was too hard." "Well, I could change, but Bob over there isn't going to change, why should I bother?" "Why not let Tim take care of it?" "I didn't directly feel any negative effects from not making your last change, why bother with this one?" "Eh, Greg's been slightly wrong before, why listen to him now?"

(Coincidentally this same laziness is the same factor that tends to wreck democracies, often with similar justifications.)

Those of you who are saying no one cares about this anymore because there are so many other problems/have been too many over-hyped catastrophies...

You are not taking into account the existence of a well-funded and strategically coordinated propaganda campaign to discredit the very idea of global warming. Only a slim majority of Americans polled say they worry about global warming, down from 66% a few years ago.

As the problem gets worse, the public concern is going the otherway. We're going backward as far as poltical will to do something is concerned. That isnt the pattern we saw regarding overpopulation, for example. There is a reason for that: too many corporations stand to lose too much investment in the current infrastructure if national policy changes.

For those of you who are looking for stronger arguments to use with skeptics and deniers:

Here is an article from Skeptic Science. It lists the most popular skeptical arguments and refutes them with scientific findings.

And here is a much more detailed and academic description of the latest findings regarding the probably long term outcomes of not doing anything about CO 2 emissions.

Honestly, I can't say I really care. That's just me, though.

Hey, I already said I supported various environmentalist ideas—albeit not for environmentalist reasons.

I'm just not going to run about like a headless chicken over it. "Oh, the world is going to end from this." Yeah, tons of things can end the world. The world sucks. That's not news, that's daily life.

So, yeah, I'm not really impressed by this at all. Worried? Vaguely. Distressed? Not particularly.

~chucks global warming on "fucked up shit" pile again~

edited 6th Nov '11 2:10:59 PM by USAF713

@USAF 713

Yes, but, unlike many of the other things that could end the world, this is something we could easily do something to fix, or at least mitigate.

I mean, that's the thing. The message—right now at least—usually isn't, "We're doomed no matter what." It's "We could be doomed, unless we do something about it, in which case we might actually be OK."

So in this case, ignoring it is bad, because ignoring and not doing anything about it is exactly what makes it upgrade from unpleasant to "really bad shit".

edited 6th Nov '11 2:26:39 PM by Jeysie

And I said, go do environmentalist things—well, environmentalist things that are sane, anyhow.

Though, once again, I don't really support the environmentalists because I like them or their policies for the stated reasons, I support them (nominally) because they're useful for other things—energy security, long-term cost reduction of energy production, etc.

It's not like I'm saying nothing needs to be done, nor am I saying that nothing should be done right now. Quite the opposite: there are loads of things I would do tomorrow, given the chance, from mandatory recycling of everything recyclable, period, to mining out old landfills and recycling that, to switching to renewables, etc. I'm just not particularly disturbed by this.

I'm disturbed by it mainly because I worry there's too many people who will stick their heads in the sand and do nothing, until it reaches the point where we really are doomed no matter what.

Fun thing about Global Warming. It is already happening. We are already feeling its effect. And it will get worse year by year.

So I wouldnt call it something long term.

Mining old landfills looks awesome.

Thread Hop.

It's one of those things where the problem is both simpler and more complex than people realize.

For example, in the United States, the real issue is work commutes. A few hours of heavy traffic 5 days a week, every morning and evening. A lot of people complain about how expensive re-designing the infrastructure of U.S. cities would be.

My solution: bypass that problem altogether by digitizing file storage as much as possible. Shore up online communications infrastructure, and then convert as many jobs as possible to work-from-home. With software like Ventrilo (which sadly gets used mainly for video gaming purposes), for less than $100 dollars a month you can arrange for voice chat between workers from any distance. Once you reduce the number of people who have to drive to work...

Can I do much about that now? Nope, so I just chalk it up to another case of humanity lacking creativity when solving its own problems. And so I go on with my business. The people who need guilt-tripping into action, incidentally, are not likely to be found on this forum, so I doubt complaining here does anything. At least now you know what you can tell them.

inorite?

It's an idea I see tossed around occasionally that at least sounds viable, though I don't know the actual practicality of it in real life.

@ deathjavu

Writing it off as pure laziness is too harsh and doesn't get to the core of the issue because, if nothing else, you just alienated the very people you need to convince. If anything, it's an issue of denial of what's happening to this planet.

I see a lot of places starting to harvest methane from landfills, but I'm not sure of what sort of quantity and its overall efficiency in generating electricity.

Climate change isn't just something we can put off dealing with. If we do nothing about climate change for a couple more decades, it is virtually certain that catastrophic (and I don't use this word lightly) warming will occur. Due to feedback effects, the changes become irreversible well before they actually manifest.

What will the effects be? Don't think about polar bears going extinct, or coastal cities flooding. Those are comparatively minor. The real thing to worry about is this: What do you think will happen if the areas that produce the vast majority of the world's food are suddenly the wrong climate for agriculture? Especially if this happens at the same time as a massive increase in the frequency and severity of droughts? (Multiple, prolonged states of extreme drought across most of North American and Europe, to be specific.) It's not a complicated matter to see that this will result in an unprecedented global food crisis, forcing mass migrations and causing many millions of deaths.

This isn't some apocalyptic prediction; it's an immediate consequence of simple physical facts. This is what the whole scientific community has been telling everyone for years. Anything less than immediate, large-scale action is reckless, bordering on suicidal.

Mass famine, resource wars, probably nuclear exchanges, etc. No need to go over the list again.

Nuclear exchanges? I sure hope not. I think countries will be sensible enough to avoid nuclear war, even during a large-scale famine. (Humans may be stupid, but even human stupidity has its limits.)

Anyway, I only brought it up again because some people don't seem to get that even though the problems aren't immediate, they need to be addressed immediately to have any chance at avoiding them.

edited 6th Nov '11 6:24:16 PM by Enthryn

@Red Viking: Denial doesn't happen in isolation, for no reason. I proposed the reason for denial as laziness, plain and simple.

I'm not sure what approach you think works, since you claim sensationalism and accurate observations/accusations don't work. Lemme tell you, honest reporting of the facts doesn't work- they've been trying that since the global warming models were first made.

Face it, people don't want to change, to the point that they'll accept the painted scenery in front of them isn't concealing a cliff, just so they don't have to turn the wheel or hit the brakes.

Of course not, silly! Nobody ever wants any kind of change that requires effort, because right now the environmentalists just blow a lot of hot air and don't bother trying to make anything appealing.

So make it appealing.

Specifically, screw environmentalism for environmentalism's sake. Appeal to patriotism and anti-rich sentiment. Alternative fuels will free us from other countries' energy production and fossil fuel companies are all fat cats who get by on the government teet.

Never try to make an argument a choice between short-term and long-term benefits. Instead, make it a choice between long-term loss and short-term gain—in this instance, fucking over people (foreign nations, big companies) that the general populace is not inclined to like.

Hell, that's why I support it: energy security and anti-monopolistic principles. Nothing more, really. That it helps global warming is just kind of a... side benefit, to me.

Dude, a Saudi prince has been on the Fox News board of directors for how long?

You can point out how we could have had electricity so cheap we could have it given away for free, and no need for foreign misadventures in the middle east, and a healthier land with lower cancer rates from less pollution, and a whole couple extra industries full of jobs that aren't easily exported overseas. But when you point it out, you're a fringe far-lefter with crazy unrealistic ideas.

Making it a choice between long-term gain and short-term losses is a good strategy, but the first thing that has to be done to combat climate change is to get people to pay some fucking attention. The stereotype of rabid environmentalists isn't the only issue.

I said actually to make it a choice between long-term losses and short-term gains.

Really, don't even mention environmentalism. Just don't. I don't care why you really support it, just don't. If you want Americans to listen, make it about 1) nationalism/patriotism (yes, they're different, I know, but I'm lumping them together for the purposes of argument) and 2) fucking over someone else that they don't like.

Hell, even the libertarians can get behind ending corporate welfare and breaking down monopolies, no?

edited 9th Nov '11 3:26:09 PM by USAF713

Yeah, I'm with Taoist.

If we could get solar panels on every house, and green technologies and better insulation into every house, it'd save people lots of money in addition to the green benefits. And said technologies would boost all sorts of jobs.

And yet the politicians stonewall every attempt to fund getting those technologies actually into the hands of consumers.