hedonicflux~~ on 10/5/2018 at 05:54
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Certainly global warming is a thing, and the end results won't be too terribly grand for us socioeconomically. But is it the End of the World? Will it result in an unlivable Venus-like hellscape within 20 years? No, not quite. Even the worst of currently accepted theories only predict a 5-6C rise in global temperature by 2100. This will result in a 100% guarantee of melted ice caps, and greatly shifted weather patterns, but the world will still be quite friendly to life in general. Some ecosystems will die. Others will thrive. Others still will arise anew. From a big picture perspective, it's a sudden slight warming of the earth.
No Renz, you're ignorant on this topic. Humans can't survive a 3.5C temperature rise. Temperature rise isn't just about it being hotter. It's about disruption of every facet of an inter-dependent ecosystem. Minute 12:00 of the first video I linked says:
"Mid-2009: UN Environmental Program predicts 3.5C increase by 2100. (Such an increase would remove habitat for human beings on the planet, as nearly all the plankton in the oceans would be destroyed, and associated temp swings would kill off many land plants. Humans have never lived on a planet at 3.5C above baseline.)"
If plankton are dead, no more fish. To eat. If plant life is dead, the effects of CO2 release are more profound because less plants are sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere. And many food crops won't be able to grow reliably in these temperatures. Crop yields during normal circumstances vary drastically year-to-year, meaning that crops are very vulnerable to temperature swings. Heat waves and wildfires are also super-sensitive to temperature swings. Look at the California wildfires last year. That will be far from the worst of it. The system is very non-linear. If you knew anything about this, you'd know that a 2C rise has been considered "in deep shit".
The entire point of my post (and maybe I didn't do the best job) was to explain that there are many localized events that are "tipping points", i.e. if they happen, the whole global ecosystem melts down. In other words, whether or not we can survive in 5-6C above normal weather (and we can) is irrelevant. Not only is our global ecosystem inter-dependent, but so is our civilization structure. And many facets of both are far more sensitive to environmental disruption than literally WE are.
Quote:
The biggest threat of global warming isn't global warming itself, it's our response to the changes it'll bring.
I agree, and that's the main reason I'm so pessimistic. Our society is so corrupt and capital has run so amok that I don't think any there's going to BE any response, in the US at least. Now,
I for one support candidates like Bernie Sanders because he would do what's in his power to mitigate the damage. But a single person or even an entire benevolent government can't stop the monster that (I think) has already been unleashed.
Quote:
Your point in increasing illnesses? What evidence are you using to support this hypothesis other than "more water equals more sick people?"
(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0cU0CwLgUs) This, for instance. But "more water equals more sick people" is a simplification of what I said. What is indisputable is that more flooding and extreme weather equals more poisoning by way of e.g. industrial facilities leaking chemicals into nearby neighborhoods. Also, if you're too ignorant to know that climate change isn't just about temperature rise and sea level rise, but that it also increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like hurricanes, I'm just not going to waste my time explaining to you how that works. This is BASIC KNOWLEDGE for anyone informed of how climate change ("global warming") works. Go to Paul Beckwith's YT channel--everything you need to know is there.
Quote:
Yeah, people die from the flu all the damn time. If 4000 people in the US died of the flu this year, then hey, that's great news, considering the average is usually around 20,000 or so, give or take. Hell, sometimes it gets crazy, and kill tens of millions of people, like it did in Europe 100 years ago. If your point here is to scare us with deaths by the measly flu, you've failed spectacularly.
Yes, I have failed spectacularly on this point. I got the number wrong. The number is 4000 flu deaths PER WEEK (look at link in original post), which is needless to say abnormal.
Quote:
Same with the lettuce e-coli outbreak. That's not anything new. It happens sometimes. Obviously someone at the farm forgot to wash their hands before shipping the veggies to the stores.
Neither one of these things will become any worse with global warming. Even a potential influx of new waters into our water tables due to melting ice caps won't make too much a dent, because...
A. Drinking unfiltered water has been making people sick since roughly 6000 BC.
B. We filter our drinking water.
All it takes is one dead animal 2 miles upstream, and suddenly that quick gulp of fresh stream water means you'll be shitting yourself half to death.
No, you're oversimplifying the hell out of this. Look, I'm not an expert on this, but take a look at the last link provided, and also (
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/09/04/how-climate-change-is-exacerbating-the-spread-of-disease/) this. I was kind of lazy with the execution of the illnesses part of my argument, so sorry.
Quote:
First off, greenhouse gasses don't go straight into the atmosphere. The vast majority is absorbed by our oceans.
...which isn't good, because it could change the acidity and oxygen content of our oceans. In extreme circumstances, this could lead to a mass aquatic extinction, which would effect us on land.
...BUT (
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/microbes-chomp-on-seafloor-methane-before-it-reaches-the-atmosphere/) it turns out we've learned that plankton and some marine microalgaes absorb a goodly amount of the greenhouse gasses we're introducing into the environment, resettling them on the sea floor, blunting (though not entirely stymieing) the effects of melting permafrost.
I'm glad you've taken it upon yourself to do some research, and the latter part of your post isn't just ignorance. And I failed to go deeply enough into this because I didn't want to write a treatise on human-caused climate change to a community I didn't think was that interested in hearing it anyway. But look at this link:
(
https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21741133-potent-greenhouse-gas-scientists-struggle-explain-worrying-rise) Scientists struggle to explain a worrying rise in atmospheric methane
So to revise my argument, they don't know exactly where the methane is coming from or how much of it is coming from the permafrost. But either way, the methane rise is deeply concerning. Methane is 25-30x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas...and the methane is in the atmosphere right now.
Quote:
And exponential temperature increase?
exponential? So what are you saying? That the earth is going to be hotter than the surface of the sun in 20 years? Wuh?
No, I'm not saying that. An exponential rise can be to the power of .00001 or something. And perhaps this is an example of ME othersimplifying. But if you take a look at Paul Beckwith's channel, he covers how, for instance, destruction of plant life due to drought from global warming means less plants are there to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere, meaning that the effects of CO2 release into the atmosphere are more profound at an accelerated pace.
hedonicflux~~ on 10/5/2018 at 18:43
Quote Posted by Sulphur
This is all ignoring the larger point: if you're looking for reasons for humanity to be fucked, you don't need global warming for that. Flu epidemic? E. Coli infections? Please. Let's call a spade a spade - if you want to be a doomcrier who sees the impending apocalypse writ large in a piece of toast, go ahead. Just don't use science as the enabler for your various illnesses, it deserves more respect than that. The scientists - the actual scientists - don't see the data and go 'oh we're doomed', they go, 'let's figure out how to fix this.' Il y a une différence.
What I'd prefer scientists did, because it's the only measly chance we have of stopping it, is go "Oh we're doomed, let's figure out how to fix this."
I haven't been clear enough on one point: I simply don't see a way of fixing this. If you know a way, I'd love to hear it. Scientists have all of the knowledge needed to greatly reduce the impact of all this and give us reasonable odds of surviving. We have all of the technology necessary. We could replace all fossil fuels with renewables in a few years if we wanted to. It's physically possible--
but it's not politically possible. Human psychology--mass stupidity--is making it impossible. Our entire society is corrupt from the top down. A hand full of people have beyond obscene amounts of wealth while there are millions of hungry children in America. We don't have a social structure capable of responding to this problem; in fact, the only thing our social structure is capable of is exacerbating it. People who are aware of the emergency of our situation don't have the tools needed to do anything about it. As I said, I'm a Berniecrat and I get my ass out and vote because it may make a small difference. But scientists and engineers are choked of the tools needed to respond to this problem. The fate of humanity is in the hands of the super-rich--and their only interest is making it to Mars on Elon's rocket before earth becomes hell.
Edit: I'll respond to the second part of your post later.