Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Climate Change or: How I Stopped Worrying and Love Rising Sea Levels

12425262830

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.

    No, the problem is that Monsanto is evil.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Al_watzepherinMegaMekkimeLabelArdolL Ron Howarddispatch.oShadowhopeiTunesIsEvilJoeUserCaptainPeacockCalicaDedwrekkaHacksawJihadJesusHonkjungleroomxFoolOnTheHill
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    Its not GMO itself that is a problem

    it is the business practices of Monsanto

    PSN: AWATTT66
    Origin ID: AIWatt (AI as in ai, not AL)
    zepherinL Ron Howarddispatch.oFencingsaxBrainleechskyknytEncShadowhopeSmrtnikJoeUserGnome-InterruptusKarozThat_GuyCalicaschussDedwrekkaBloodsheedRiusHacksawGiggles_FunsworthJihadJesusCptKemzikHonkFoolOnTheHill
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Monsanto is looking to literally become Spiga Biotech

    They are shady as fuck

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.

    There are drawbacks to GMO stuff like homogenization of DNA, which means the right kind of disease could wipe out all or practically of a particular crop.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    GvzbgulkimezepherinElvenshaeIncenjucarBrainleechEncemp123ShadowhopeKarozBloodsheedHacksawAbsalon
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.

    There are drawbacks to GMO stuff like homogenization of DNA, which means the right kind of disease could wipe out all or practically of a particular crop.

    The better we get at genetic modification (and the better we get at legislating it), the less that's going to be an issue. It should be reasonably possible to artificially inject variation into parts of the DNA that aren't specifically selected for, and once we can get complete DNA logs of wild and modified strains and have the ability to rebuild that DNA from semi-scratch, even total extinctions won't last longer than a single growing season.

    ShadowhopekimeGiggles_Funsworth
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    edited March 16
    No, the problem is that Monsanto is evil.
    Aside from the usual "let's dump our factory waste in rivers" b.s. they're actually not that bad. The whole "ZOMG evil corporation sues innocent farmer for seeds that blew into his field!!" is entirely wrong. They were fine with the herbicide-resistant seeds blowing into his field, what they didn't like was him dumping herbicide all over aforesaid field and then growing only the Monsanto plants without paying for them. The whole thing started when they said "hey, we see that you're using our patented seeds, that's great, here's the contract and fee to use them" and he was basically like "lol screw you I found them"

    Captain Marcus on
    ISIS delenda est
    crosskillaDisruptedCapitalist
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    Heffling wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.

    There are drawbacks to GMO stuff like homogenization of DNA, which means the right kind of disease could wipe out all or practically of a particular crop.
    Sorry for your luck Mr Farmer, Monsanto will sell you some mor hybrid seeds the 3.5 edition are resistant to that kind of disease unfortunately they cost 3 times as much, since you don't have any capital we will accept your farm as collateral.

    zepherin on
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    This question got botp'd, and I, too, am curious.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.

    ShadowhopeShivahnGiggles_Funsworth
  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.

    Indeed, biomes are mobile and can shift north/south to adjust for slight changes in climate. In extreme conditions they seek refuge.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugium_(population_biology)
    In a rapid warming scenario more mobile species might find refuge but plantlife is fucked.

    steam_sig.png
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited March 16
    .

    Edit: wrong thread

    a5ehren on
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    VishNub wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So the denial is already starting

    EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
    "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

    He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."

    I think the oil companies have a better view than that.

    I don't think any of the major oil companies publicly deny AGW.

    They also all invest a decent sum in renewable research, though if you're cynical it is because they want to tie up anything groundbreaking in patent cases for 20 years.

    More that they still want to be king of the hill even when coal and oil (as non-plastic sources) are dead.

    They've made a deal with the devil to buy them the time they need, and that deal is slowly backfiring on them. Killing solar subsidies outright means they can't get them either, when the goal was to keep them for established energy companies and not let startup semiconductor companies suck them all up.
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    This question got botp'd, and I, too, am curious.

    The extinction that clarate release would be recreating is called The Great Dying for a reason. It was by far the worst mass extinction ever. It is the only one so severe that even insects and worms experienced double digit losses. Humans will not survive a repeat, Mammalia as a whole might not.

    Hevach on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    This question got botp'd, and I, too, am curious.

    The release of the methane stored in undersea clathrates and siberia would be like doubling all atmosoheric gases, including water, over a year or two. Temperatures would soar by multiple degrees, and the oceans would acidify, killing plankton and coral. Land based plants would die quickly from drought and utterly abnormal weather patterns, and ocean plants would follow soon after. Decaying plant life and dying animals would spike methane levels still further, rendering much of the planet above the point where humans and most animals could cool themselves. Algae would bloom and die frantically in newly warmed regions, removing oxygen from the oceans. Most humans would be dead, and those few survivors would be starving and frantically heading as far north as possible. If we were lucky, the remaining biosphere would suffice to consume and break down the methane again soon enough that there would be remaining viable seeds and hibernating insects etc to rebuild the biosphere quickly (albeit with almost all large animals dead).

    So our space traveller would return to find our cities deserted. Grasslands, ants, and cicadas as far as the eye can see, with blackened and burned forests all that remain of larger plant life.. A few humans might be holding on in say, Canada, norway, or northern Russia.

    Or the remaining biosphere could be too weak to hold on, and our traveller would return to find the surface looks like a cooler venus and all that remain of life is huddled deep beneath the soil and around deep ocean vents. These hardy organisms would probably still eventually suck up all the co2 and breakdown all the methane but it would take an absurdly long time.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    No, the problem is that Monsanto is evil.
    Aside from the usual "let's dump our factory waste in rivers" b.s. they're actually not that bad. The whole "ZOMG evil corporation sues innocent farmer for seeds that blew into his field!!" is entirely wrong. They were fine with the herbicide-resistant seeds blowing into his field, what they didn't like was him dumping herbicide all over aforesaid field and then growing only the Monsanto plants without paying for them. The whole thing started when they said "hey, we see that you're using our patented seeds, that's great, here's the contract and fee to use them" and he was basically like "lol screw you I found them"

    One of the problems is that they sell both pesticides and pesticide-resistant crops and make money on both sides of the equation, even as it becomes increasingly clear that said pesticides are killing off honeybees and poisoning the environment - and people - in general. Their business depends on encouraging terribly destructive farming practices.

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    Fallen London: Clara MacIntyre Guild Wars 2: Calica.4031
    Gnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthLabel
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    One of the problems is that they sell both pesticides and pesticide-resistant crops and make money on both sides of the equation, even as it becomes increasingly clear that said pesticides are killing off honeybees and poisoning the environment - and people - in general. Their business depends on encouraging terribly destructive farming practices.
    Pesticides are only one of the many, many things that are messing up honeybees, although I agree that they don't help. I'm not going to hold Monsanto responsible for today's destructive farming practices, that's entirely on this asshole who got rid of a ton of New Deal programs and encouraged farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow" and "get big or get out".

    ISIS delenda est
    DisruptedCapitalist
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Thanks for the answer, guys.

    Given that the result of all that methane entering the atmosphere would be somewhere between apocalyptic and double-plus apocalyptic, what's the likelihood of that actually coming to pass?

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • SealSeal Registered User regular
    Know one really knows, but those in a position to have a clear view of the situation (climate scientists) think it would be a good idea to stop playing Russian roulette with the climate and get serious about the situation, despite the inconvenience it represents to certain industries.

  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't I.

    God dammit Gibson.

    zepherin on
    Giggles_Funsworth
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Thanks for the answer, guys.

    Given that the result of all that methane entering the atmosphere would be somewhere between apocalyptic and double-plus apocalyptic, what's the likelihood of that actually coming to pass?

    I believe it's 100% if we don't do anything about climate change and keep increasing g CO2 emissions.

    I've read as high as a 50/50 chance if we do enough to keep atmospheric CO2 at current levels and lower emissions.

    I've also read that it may have actually already started and we may not be able to do anything about it and are screwed. Hitting 400ppm in atmospheric CO2 may have been the literal point of no return and we are all dead already. Isn't atmospheric science fun?

    steam_sig.png
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Thanks for the answer, guys.

    Given that the result of all that methane entering the atmosphere would be somewhere between apocalyptic and double-plus apocalyptic, what's the likelihood of that actually coming to pass?

    I believe it's 100% if we don't do anything about climate change and keep increasing g CO2 emissions.

    I've read as high as a 50/50 chance if we do enough to keep atmospheric CO2 at current levels and lower emissions.

    I've also read that it may have actually already started and we may not be able to do anything about it and are screwed. Hitting 400ppm in atmospheric CO2 may have been the literal point of no return and we are all dead already. Isn't atmospheric science fun?

    I have faith in humanity's ability to engineer our world to our needs. We are in a bad place now, and it will get worse for many many people, but I have no doubt we will be driven by self interest to eventually figure out a more permanent stabilization.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    zepherinGiggles_FunsworthCaptain Marcus
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.

    Ayyyy it's a driver of unsustainable agribusiness and overuse of herbicides and fertilizers lmao

    Calica
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't.

    God dammit Gibson.

    In a deep dark part of my mind, I kind of wish for an India-Pakistan or India-China nuclear exchange. Not enough nukes to end life planet wide, but a bit of cooling from the smoke/particles and a pretty massive bending of the global emissions curve projections.

    zepherin
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    zepherin wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't.

    God dammit Gibson.

    Cold War rhetoric vastly overstated nuclear winter. If the nuclear war does not involve most or all of the US or Russian arsenals, there will be no nuclear winter. The combined global arsenal is under 9 gigatons, and the US and Russia both have over 4 each. And a lot of those are in reserve or awaiting disassembly, it's not entirely clear how much is ready to go but we're way off the 12 gigaton peak from 1982.

    A war between Pakistan and India wouldn't even end the industrial age in those countries, if China jumps in maybe the information age in Asia would come to a close for a few years, since at least then we will see some strategic weapons and not just a tactical exchange taking out everybody's forces in Kashmir. North Korea's entire arsenal WS estimated at 6-18 kilotons, and that was before we learned that one of their nuclear tests was actually an earthquake. Putting the whole country down wouldn't even take that, it would be accomplished convtionally once a major power decides they don't need to clean up afterwards anymore.

    Hevach on
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't.

    God dammit Gibson.

    Cold War rhetoric vastly overstated nuclear winter. If the nuclear war does not involve most or all of the US or Russian arsenals, there will be no nuclear winter. The combined global arsenal is under 9 gigatons, and the US and Russia both have over 4 each. And a lot of those are in reserve or awaiting disassembly, it's not entirely clear how much is ready to go but we're way off the 12 gigaton peak from 1982.

    A war between Pakistan and India wouldn't even end the industrial age in those countries, if China jumps in maybe the information age in Asia would come to a close for a few years, since at least then we will see some strategic weapons and not just a tactical exchange taking out everybody's forces in Kashmir. North Korea's entire arsenal WS estimated at 6-18 kilotons, and that was before we learned that one of their nuclear tests was actually an earthquake. Putting the whole country down wouldn't even take that, it would be accomplished convtionally once a major power decides they don't need to clean up afterwards anymore.
    So yes a limited nuclear exchange is not going to wipe out humanity, but according to recent climate models an exchange between India and Pakistan could cause a 2-3 degree drop in global temperature, which is a pretty big impact.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    zepherin wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't.

    God dammit Gibson.

    Cold War rhetoric vastly overstated nuclear winter. If the nuclear war does not involve most or all of the US or Russian arsenals, there will be no nuclear winter. The combined global arsenal is under 9 gigatons, and the US and Russia both have over 4 each. And a lot of those are in reserve or awaiting disassembly, it's not entirely clear how much is ready to go but we're way off the 12 gigaton peak from 1982.

    A war between Pakistan and India wouldn't even end the industrial age in those countries, if China jumps in maybe the information age in Asia would come to a close for a few years, since at least then we will see some strategic weapons and not just a tactical exchange taking out everybody's forces in Kashmir. North Korea's entire arsenal WS estimated at 6-18 kilotons, and that was before we learned that one of their nuclear tests was actually an earthquake. Putting the whole country down wouldn't even take that, it would be accomplished convtionally once a major power decides they don't need to clean up afterwards anymore.
    So yes a limited nuclear exchange is not going to wipe out humanity, but according to recent climate models an exchange between India and Pakistan could cause a 2-3 degree drop in global temperature, which is a pretty big impact.

    The jury is still out on those models (if we're thinking of the same ones) because they assumed "total use" of the arsenals; that is, every weapon used, and every weapon used on a location that generated the kind of smoke plumes that lead to regional or global cooling effects. Which isn't plausible for a realistic exchange. So it's not necessarily the case that an India/Pakistan exchange would cause that huge of an impact on global temperatures.

    Professor Phobos on
    zepherinCaptain Marcus
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Well that's a morbid tangent. And makes me wonder if anyone with more ideas than sense is planning to nuke volcanos to trigger erruptions and lower tempatures.

    HonkUnlucky
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    zepherin wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't.

    God dammit Gibson.

    Cold War rhetoric vastly overstated nuclear winter. If the nuclear war does not involve most or all of the US or Russian arsenals, there will be no nuclear winter. The combined global arsenal is under 9 gigatons, and the US and Russia both have over 4 each. And a lot of those are in reserve or awaiting disassembly, it's not entirely clear how much is ready to go but we're way off the 12 gigaton peak from 1982.

    A war between Pakistan and India wouldn't even end the industrial age in those countries, if China jumps in maybe the information age in Asia would come to a close for a few years, since at least then we will see some strategic weapons and not just a tactical exchange taking out everybody's forces in Kashmir. North Korea's entire arsenal WS estimated at 6-18 kilotons, and that was before we learned that one of their nuclear tests was actually an earthquake. Putting the whole country down wouldn't even take that, it would be accomplished convtionally once a major power decides they don't need to clean up afterwards anymore.
    So yes a limited nuclear exchange is not going to wipe out humanity, but according to recent climate models an exchange between India and Pakistan could cause a 2-3 degree drop in global temperature, which is a pretty big impact.

    The jury is still out on those models (if we're thinking of the same ones) because they assumed "total use" of the arsenals; that is, every weapon used, and every weapon used on a location that generated the kind of smoke plumes that lead to regional or global cooling effects. Which isn't plausible for a realistic exchange. So it's not necessarily the case that an India/Pakistan exchange would cause that huge of an impact on global temperatures.
    Total use is going to be assured, if you are using a nuke against another nuclear power, you don't do it a little. That's a total commitment. If you drop 2 you risk them commuting to total use. It's a virtual assuring that if they drop 1 they are dropping 100. Maybe keep a few back to strike other countries, but total use is probable. Now maximizing plumes that is questionable.

    zepherin on
    Elvenshae
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    zepherin wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't.

    God dammit Gibson.

    Cold War rhetoric vastly overstated nuclear winter. If the nuclear war does not involve most or all of the US or Russian arsenals, there will be no nuclear winter. The combined global arsenal is under 9 gigatons, and the US and Russia both have over 4 each. And a lot of those are in reserve or awaiting disassembly, it's not entirely clear how much is ready to go but we're way off the 12 gigaton peak from 1982.

    A war between Pakistan and India wouldn't even end the industrial age in those countries, if China jumps in maybe the information age in Asia would come to a close for a few years, since at least then we will see some strategic weapons and not just a tactical exchange taking out everybody's forces in Kashmir. North Korea's entire arsenal WS estimated at 6-18 kilotons, and that was before we learned that one of their nuclear tests was actually an earthquake. Putting the whole country down wouldn't even take that, it would be accomplished convtionally once a major power decides they don't need to clean up afterwards anymore.
    So yes a limited nuclear exchange is not going to wipe out humanity, but according to recent climate models an exchange between India and Pakistan could cause a 2-3 degree drop in global temperature, which is a pretty big impact.

    The jury is still out on those models (if we're thinking of the same ones) because they assumed "total use" of the arsenals; that is, every weapon used, and every weapon used on a location that generated the kind of smoke plumes that lead to regional or global cooling effects. Which isn't plausible for a realistic exchange. So it's not necessarily the case that an India/Pakistan exchange would cause that huge of an impact on global temperatures.
    Total use is going to be assured, if you are using a nuke against another nuclear power, you don't do it a little. That's a total commitment. If you drop 2 you risk them commuting to total use. It's a virtual assuring that if they drop 1 they are dropping 100. Maybe keep a few back to strike other countries, but total use is probable. No maximizing plumes that is questionable.

    Well, some of them are going to be held in reserve, and some are going to be hit by the other side before they get off the ground. But the real point is that many won't be used on the cities (or forests) that cause cooling when they burn big - small cities, tactical use, military bases, etc.

    Essentially, regarding nuclear winter, we don't really know, at the moment, because we (thankfully) don't have enough evidence.

    Professor Phobos on
    zepherin
  • crosskillacrosskilla Registered User new member
    What's easier to survive in, a Nuclear Winter, or a Globally warmed world?

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    crosskilla wrote: »
    What's easier to survive in, a Nuclear Winter, or a Globally warmed world?

    Nuclear winter fixes itself over a few years. We deal with a similar scale event every thousand years or so when we get a massive volcanic eruption. Modern crop technologies can deal much better with it being too cold (since we have good weather forecasting and can plant crops on JUST the right day to give them time to ripen in a brief summer) than it being too hot (since we can't order water into existence)

    CO2 caused global warming MAYBE fixes itself over a century, and doesn't necesarily restore itself to the same balance point we have now.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Thanks for the answer, guys.

    Given that the result of all that methane entering the atmosphere would be somewhere between apocalyptic and double-plus apocalyptic, what's the likelihood of that actually coming to pass?

    As others have said, there is a sustained temperature where this happens strongly enough to become self reinforcing (IE, the 'leak' rate exceeds earths ability to quench it into the environment). If we hit that temperature, this happens, and it is an unstoppable immediate catastophe.

    Now, this temperature MAY be 5 degrees or 10 degrees warmer than now, so we'd all already be long dead, but it's a very binary fine last month now its the end of the world style of problem.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    crosskilla wrote: »
    What's easier to survive in, a Nuclear Winter, or a Globally warmed world?

    Depends on how bad the winter is, or how much warming occurs.

    zepherinPhoenix-DShadowhopeNyysjan
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    One of the problems is that they sell both pesticides and pesticide-resistant crops and make money on both sides of the equation, even as it becomes increasingly clear that said pesticides are killing off honeybees and poisoning the environment - and people - in general. Their business depends on encouraging terribly destructive farming practices.
    Pesticides are only one of the many, many things that are messing up honeybees, although I agree that they don't help. I'm not going to hold Monsanto responsible for today's destructive farming practices, that's entirely on this asshole who got rid of a ton of New Deal programs and encouraged farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow" and "get big or get out".

    They're absolutely not entirely to blame for the system they are a part of; but anybody taking advantage of a hugely destructive system to profit is responsible for ensuring that system continues to exist in a destructive form. I would feel differently if Monsanto seemed like they were doing anything to change those practices.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    CalicaLabel
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    crosskilla wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with GMO stuff. It's important to create drought resistant strains.
    It's the only thing that's going to save oranges, that's for sure
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
    Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?

    It would be roughly like doubling our current CO2 levels. Massive very quick tempature increases, probably with knock on effects to ocean chemistry and other fun stuff like that. This might have happened right before the Triassic, and then *96%* of ocean life and 70% of land life died. Too much heat too fast.

    (Side note the heat doesn't worry me the most about global warming from CO2. Ocean acidification does, mainly from the damage it could do to ocean food chains)

    Thankfully it's looking like the methane might be sturdier than we expected.
    Honestly I don't think we'll get to that point. We will likely start killing each other before then.

    From a global standpoint in about 15-30 years we will see a decrease in food production. The US will be ok, because we are the most efficient farmers on the planet, and while our food prices will go up we can feed the nation, other countries will not. Famine will drive countries to take drastic action. India, Pakistan, N Korea, hell maybe even a European nation will start a nuclear conflict. It will never go full war games level, but it will cause a nuclear winter. Rapid cooling of the earth, radiation other nastiness.

    Combined with reduced food production, diseases that never really become full blown pandemics and...Fuck I'm describing the Jackpot aren't.

    God dammit Gibson.

    It was his most hopeful book though! Guy really chickened out with the ending.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    zepherin
  • hippofanthippofant Chu. Registered User regular
    edited March 17
    Enc wrote: »
    Veevee wrote: »
    Thanks for the answer, guys.

    Given that the result of all that methane entering the atmosphere would be somewhere between apocalyptic and double-plus apocalyptic, what's the likelihood of that actually coming to pass?

    I believe it's 100% if we don't do anything about climate change and keep increasing g CO2 emissions.

    I've read as high as a 50/50 chance if we do enough to keep atmospheric CO2 at current levels and lower emissions.

    I've also read that it may have actually already started and we may not be able to do anything about it and are screwed. Hitting 400ppm in atmospheric CO2 may have been the literal point of no return and we are all dead already. Isn't atmospheric science fun?

    I have faith in humanity's ability to engineer our world to our needs. We are in a bad place now, and it will get worse for many many people, but I have no doubt we will be driven by self interest to eventually figure out a more permanent stabilization.

    The "problem" is, however, that these are lose-lose bets. I mean, okay, humanity is ingenious enough to stave off extinction if global warming causes massive global drought conditions... but we'll almost certainly have descended into WWIII and lost millions, if not billions, of lives. Great, India and the UAE were able to redesign their societies to limit death from heat stroke... except millions of people still probably died first, and, oh, they can't go outside any more.

    We're staring into the abyss with no idea how far down it goes, but we'll probably be able to engineer something to save us before hitting the bottom? We could, you know, just not go into the hole, but there's a shiny piece of candy right there!

    hippofant on
    OmnomnomPancakeDirtmuncherMahnmutArdolCalicaEnckime
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Veevee wrote: »
    Thanks for the answer, guys.

    Given that the result of all that methane entering the atmosphere would be somewhere between apocalyptic and double-plus apocalyptic, what's the likelihood of that actually coming to pass?

    I believe it's 100% if we don't do anything about climate change and keep increasing g CO2 emissions.

    I've read as high as a 50/50 chance if we do enough to keep atmospheric CO2 at current levels and lower emissions.

    I've also read that it may have actually already started and we may not be able to do anything about it and are screwed. Hitting 400ppm in atmospheric CO2 may have been the literal point of no return and we are all dead already. Isn't atmospheric science fun?

    I have faith in humanity's ability to engineer our world to our needs. We are in a bad place now, and it will get worse for many many people, but I have no doubt we will be driven by self interest to eventually figure out a more permanent stabilization.

    The "problem" is, however, that these are lose-lose bets. I mean, okay, humanity is ingenious enough to stave off extinction if global warming causes massive global drought conditions... but we'll almost certainly have descended into WWIII and lost millions, if not billions, of lives. Great, India and the UAE were able to redesign their societies to limit death from heat stroke... except millions of people still probably died first, and, oh, they can't go outside any more.

    We're staring into the abyss with no idea how far down it goes, but we'll probably be able to engineer something to save us before hitting the bottom? We could, you know, just not go into the hole, but there's a shiny piece of candy right there!

    There's also a pretty robust level of civilization - industry, government, research capacity - necessary to save modern society that is going to have to survive all of those effects. Will humanity survive? Most likely. We're like cockroaches - as long as 1,500 to 5,000 people out of 5 billion make it through the species will continue.

    Will modern civilization? That's a lot more iffy. If the future of humanity is a bunch of caveman-level scavengers hiding in caves until the sun goes down, do we mark that as a win?

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    UnluckyHacksawL Ron HowardkimeNightslyr
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    One of the main philosophical reasons so many conservatives resist the idea of global warming is that, if they admitted it was real, they would have to admit that there was a reason for massive taxation and large government programs. They aren't entirely wrong - a future in which global warming massively disrupts society is a future where "freedom" is going to be heavily curtailed and totalitarian solutions will start looking good.

    Look at WWII. Between rationing, war taxes, general conscription, and censorship, American society was far more restrictive and government far more powerful than it has ever been before or since.

    None of which has anything to do with the reality of global warming. If anything, it might be the start of a parable about how avoiding a cooperative solution is a great way of guaranteeing the outcome you most fear for conservatives.

    electricitylikesmeUnluckyHacksawL Ron HowardNightslyr
  • hippofanthippofant Chu. Registered User regular
    edited March 19
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Time to rage at Science Fiction writers who always imagined humanity coming together to defeat a common threat. Turns out the "self interest" that drives people has nothing to do with self-interest in humanity or the world, but self-interest in their own status quo.
    Turns out looking back on history with rose colored glasses just left people with the impression that humans come together in times of crisis and ignored all the people who had to be forced into acquiescing to the common good. Those people didn't get their comeuppance, they persevered through it to be just as big of assholes on the far side of the crisis.

    The optimistic view that humanity will gather together in a big group hug if we're threatened is never the reality. In reality you have to force people to put aside their self-interest in favor of common-interest. And the optimistic view undermines the amount of work that has to go into making us work together.

    One of the main philosophical reasons so many conservatives resist the idea of global warming is that, if they admitted it was real, they would have to admit that there was a reason for massive taxation and large government programs. They aren't entirely wrong - a future in which global warming massively disrupts society is a future where "freedom" is going to be heavily curtailed and totalitarian solutions will start looking good.

    Look at WWII. Between rationing, war taxes, general conscription, and censorship, American society was far more restrictive and government far more powerful than it has ever been before or since.

    None of which has anything to do with the reality of global warming. If anything, it might be the start of a parable about how avoiding a cooperative solution is a great way of guaranteeing the outcome you most fear for conservatives.

    I dunno. Sometimes I get the sense that it's more about refusing to change lifestyles, an adamant unwillingness to make even small lifestyle compromises for a greater, common good. It starts with cries of, "They want us to take shorter showers, wash our dishes by hand, use less electricity, drive smaller cars! Over my dead body!" And then the opposition to government intervention comes later, because that's the only way to overcome the behavioural resistance in the first place.

    Like bottled water. Could we all just stop buying and drinking bottled water? We got by for decades not. But no, people adamantly refuse to, so then when the government intervenes to limit the behaviour, or even just ensure that bottled water is priced properly, it's only then when the anti-government ideology emerges, I think.

    hippofant on
    Edith Upwards
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited March 19
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Well that's a morbid tangent. And makes me wonder if anyone with more ideas than sense is planning to nuke volcanos to trigger erruptions and lower tempatures.

    This was actually one of the various batshit ideas proposed for civilian use of nuclear weapons, others being rapid mine excavation and canal digging.

    The it's not entirely clear if it would actually do anything, and so far nobody with nukes to spare wants to test. The best case scenario of course being a radioactive volcano and that sounds a lot more like a worse case scenario than you generally look for in a best case scenario.

    Hevach on
    Captain Marcus
Sign In or Register to comment.