Climate Change: Where every storm is Perfect

2456731

Posts

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'd say human extinction from a nuclear war caused by climate change is a real possibility.

    I don't think so. There are really only 2 countries with end the world level of nukes. The US and Russia, at 1600 deployed and about 6k total warheads, neither of which are going to be the most hurt by climate change. Everyone else has 300 warheads or less- the US conduct over 1000 nuclear tests just as a point of reference.

    Now something more regional - most likely India and Pakistan - is something I can see happening.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    spool32
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Really the Earth is a giant fucking death trap and we’re super lucky it hasn’t already murdered us all.

    manwiththemachinegunShadowfireJohnny ChopsockyDirtmuncherSleepMrVyngaardwanderingNobeard
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    Also on the bright side is global warming is delaying the next ice age, so glass half full?

    bowenKruite
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/permian-basin-is-flaring-more-gas-than-texas-residents-use-daily
    America’s hottest oil patch is producing so much natural gas that by the end of last year producers were burning off more than enough of the fuel to meet residential demand across the whole of Texas. The phenomenon has likely only intensified since then.

    Flaring is the controversial but common practice in which oil and gas drillers burn off gas that can’t be easily or efficiently captured and stored. It releases carbon dioxide and is lighting up the skies of West Texas and New Mexico as the Permian Basin undergoes a massive production boom. Oil wells there produce gas as a byproduct, and because pipeline infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with the expansion, energy companies must sometimes choose between flaring and slowing production

    Anytime someone tries to claim that companies are inherently efficient show then this.

    This practice should be illegal. Polluting like this because you can't be arsed to store what you're pumping is ridiculous.

    (and before anyone chimes in: yes I know this is old and common. It's still ridiculous)

    Phoenix-D on
    Gnome-InterruptuskimethatassemblyguyCalicaelectricitylikesmeSleepMilltynicSkeithMegaMekRingoShortyRawkking Goodguyjimb213Kamaremp123HacksawNobeardAl_watMagell
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    building and installing the extra infrastructure to handle extra gas production could be more environmentally costly than just burning it. I remember doing a comparison of how to handle emissions from a small test field.

    The emissions had some NOx, so regulation demanded that it be controlled either by flaring it, storing it, and pumping it back into the ground (rightfully so). Flaring it required that they burn as much natural gas (flow wise) as the emissions coming out of the storage tanks. Pumping it back into the ground required installing another compressor system, whose energy cost was more than the natural gas consumption for burning it. I don't have a good idea of the cost increase for turning an atmospheric storage tank into a pressurized vessel, but it's not trivial.

    The best answer to the excess gas production is to rebuild our electric power infrastructure; if there's enough gas production we should reward producers for putting power back onto the grid (they can use the gas to run generators locally).

    electricitylikesme
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Here in Norway (major oil and gas producer) flaring is illegal except as an emergency measure, and oversight has teeth in this matter.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    Gnome-InterruptusJaysonFourthatassemblyguyCalicaOghulkShadowfireFencingsaxSleepMilltynicBloodsheeddispatch.oSkeithRchanenShortyRawkking GoodguyIncenjucaremp123Hacksawspool32jkylefultonNobeardAl_watHappy Little Machine
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/permian-basin-is-flaring-more-gas-than-texas-residents-use-daily
    America’s hottest oil patch is producing so much natural gas that by the end of last year producers were burning off more than enough of the fuel to meet residential demand across the whole of Texas. The phenomenon has likely only intensified since then.

    Flaring is the controversial but common practice in which oil and gas drillers burn off gas that can’t be easily or efficiently captured and stored. It releases carbon dioxide and is lighting up the skies of West Texas and New Mexico as the Permian Basin undergoes a massive production boom. Oil wells there produce gas as a byproduct, and because pipeline infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with the expansion, energy companies must sometimes choose between flaring and slowing production

    Anytime someone tries to claim that companies are inherently efficient show then this.

    This practice should be illegal. Polluting like this because you can't be arsed to store what you're pumping is ridiculous.

    (and before anyone chimes in: yes I know this is old and common. It's still ridiculous)

    It's up to enforcement. I read an article about this in South Dakota, where wells are required to capture at least 90% of the gas released, but ignore the law and just burn off over half, to the point that in infrared satellite pictures the field is the brightest thing visible.

  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Kruite wrote: »
    building and installing the extra infrastructure to handle extra gas production could be more environmentally costly than just burning it. I remember doing a comparison of how to handle emissions from a small test field.

    The emissions had some NOx, so regulation demanded that it be controlled either by flaring it, storing it, and pumping it back into the ground (rightfully so). Flaring it required that they burn as much natural gas (flow wise) as the emissions coming out of the storage tanks. Pumping it back into the ground required installing another compressor system, whose energy cost was more than the natural gas consumption for burning it. I don't have a good idea of the cost increase for turning an atmospheric storage tank into a pressurized vessel, but it's not trivial.

    The best answer to the excess gas production is to rebuild our electric power infrastructure; if there's enough gas production we should reward producers for putting power back onto the grid (they can use the gas to run generators locally).

    They also had the option of just slowing down production some in order to not destroy our planet. $$$ took precedence

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    Phoenix-DJaysonFourGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxSleeptynicMaijinamuroHacksawAl_wat
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    Kruite wrote: »
    building and installing the extra infrastructure to handle extra gas production could be more environmentally costly than just burning it. I remember doing a comparison of how to handle emissions from a small test field.

    The emissions had some NOx, so regulation demanded that it be controlled either by flaring it, storing it, and pumping it back into the ground (rightfully so). Flaring it required that they burn as much natural gas (flow wise) as the emissions coming out of the storage tanks. Pumping it back into the ground required installing another compressor system, whose energy cost was more than the natural gas consumption for burning it. I don't have a good idea of the cost increase for turning an atmospheric storage tank into a pressurized vessel, but it's not trivial.

    The best answer to the excess gas production is to rebuild our electric power infrastructure; if there's enough gas production we should reward producers for putting power back onto the grid (they can use the gas to run generators locally).

    They also had the option of just slowing down production some in order to not destroy our planet. $$$ took precedence

    good luck convincing a company to slow production down; its akin to asking someone to take a pay cut "just because"

    kime
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Kruite wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Kruite wrote: »
    building and installing the extra infrastructure to handle extra gas production could be more environmentally costly than just burning it. I remember doing a comparison of how to handle emissions from a small test field.

    The emissions had some NOx, so regulation demanded that it be controlled either by flaring it, storing it, and pumping it back into the ground (rightfully so). Flaring it required that they burn as much natural gas (flow wise) as the emissions coming out of the storage tanks. Pumping it back into the ground required installing another compressor system, whose energy cost was more than the natural gas consumption for burning it. I don't have a good idea of the cost increase for turning an atmospheric storage tank into a pressurized vessel, but it's not trivial.

    The best answer to the excess gas production is to rebuild our electric power infrastructure; if there's enough gas production we should reward producers for putting power back onto the grid (they can use the gas to run generators locally).

    They also had the option of just slowing down production some in order to not destroy our planet. $$$ took precedence

    good luck convincing a company to slow production down; its akin to asking someone to take a pay cut "just because"

    I mean, yeah, in no way do I expect a corporation to voluntarily slow down. It's not "just because," of course, it's "because you are destroying the planet you silly goose." But I still don't expect them to.

    I'd say the answer is regulation, but according to Hevach it already is illegal and no one in the government cares. So... shrug, go vote?

    PA HotS Group
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    Maybe in South Dakota there's regulation for it, but there is none that I'm aware of in LA. The sad state of affairs is that the LA government just doesn't care and any and all progress on environmental policy here has been staff and corporate policy deciding that it deserves consideration.

    An example; did work for a client in "Cancer Row", the land between Baton Rouge and New Orleans along the Mississippi River. An old, about to retire mechanic who made his way into document control / maintenance was telling me that this firm just dumped all used lube oil down the drain. Any argument of how much that pollutes the land and the waterways fell on deaf ears. Management eventually started to recycle it once this guy proposed that by recycling it they can make money from the sale.

    Progress everyone *face palm*

  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    Jesus this thread has been pessimistic so far (not without cause, but still). A little optimism:

    I'm feeling pretty good about our chances of substantially reducing meat consumption over the next decade or so. With companies like Impossible doing good work, I think it's just a matter of time before we can effectively replicate meat using plant-based foods. I'm the kind of person who could barely even envision becoming a full-on vegetarian just five years ago, but today I'm starting to feel like at least significantly reducing my meat consumption could be feasible very soon. Hell, I'm already strongly considering cutting beef out of my diet entirely, maybe in a matter of months.

    Renewable energy is damn near a solved problem technologically and is on the right trajectory to replace fossil fuels if we can just get a little more public investment to encourage it along.

    Most humans either already do or will live in cities, and some cities are already taking substantial measures to shift our built environment into a sustainable form, like Minneapolis doing away with parking minimums and single-family zoning across pretty much the entire city. We need a hell of a lot more of that, and it is a politically difficult problem to crack. I think this is the thing I have the most doubt and concern about so it's what I'm trying to spread the most awareness of. But it's not entirely intractable as a problem and are seeing some movement away from the sprawl form.

    The biggest cause for pessimism is the short time frame we have to work with and the stubbornness of boomers in making the changes needed. But I don't think we can assume the pace of change we're on now is going to hold. When the boomers start dying off in high numbers I hope and expect that change will accelerate dramatically. Hopefully it's soon enough to make the situation merely bad as opposed to catastrophic.

    OremLK on
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    Jesus this thread has been pessimistic so far (not without cause, but still). A little optimism:

    I'm feeling pretty good about our chances of substantially reducing meat consumption over the next decade or so. With companies like Impossible doing good work, I think it's just a matter of time before we can effectively replicate meat using plant-based foods. I'm the kind of person who could barely even envision becoming a full-on vegetarian just five years ago, but today I'm starting to feel like at least significantly reducing my meat consumption could be feasible very soon. Hell, I'm already strongly considering cutting beef out of my diet entirely, maybe in a matter of months.

    Renewable energy is damn near a solved problem technologically and is on the right trajectory to replace fossil fuels if we can just get a little more public investment to encourage it along.

    Most humans either already do or will live in cities, and some cities are already taking substantial measures to shift our built environment into a sustainable form, like Minneapolis doing away with parking minimums and single-family zoning across pretty much the entire city. We need a hell of a lot more of that, and it is a politically difficult problem to crack. I think this is the thing I have the most doubt and concern about so it's what I'm trying to spread the most awareness of. But it's not entirely intractable as a problem and are seeing some movement away from the sprawl form.

    The biggest cause for pessimism is the short time frame we have to work with and the stubbornness of boomers in making the changes needed. But I don't think we can assume the pace of change we're on now is going to hold. When the boomers start dying off in high numbers I hope and expect that change will accelerate dramatically. Hopefully it's soon enough to make the situation merely bad as opposed to catastrophic.

    Boomers got like a decade till retirement and tons of them have a real noticable problem where they don't think anyone but them could be in charge.

    dispatch.oCommander ZoomtynicSkeithShortythatassemblyguyFencingsaxHacksawStyrofoam SammichjkylefultonVeaglestopgap
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    I've drastically reduced my beef and pork consumption. Still eat a ton of chicken a b turkey, which being meat still isn't amazing for the environment, but better than beef. Basically the only beef i eat these days is in Pho once every couple of weeks, and maybe a fancy burger on special occasions every few months.

    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    Kruite wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Kruite wrote: »
    building and installing the extra infrastructure to handle extra gas production could be more environmentally costly than just burning it. I remember doing a comparison of how to handle emissions from a small test field.

    The emissions had some NOx, so regulation demanded that it be controlled either by flaring it, storing it, and pumping it back into the ground (rightfully so). Flaring it required that they burn as much natural gas (flow wise) as the emissions coming out of the storage tanks. Pumping it back into the ground required installing another compressor system, whose energy cost was more than the natural gas consumption for burning it. I don't have a good idea of the cost increase for turning an atmospheric storage tank into a pressurized vessel, but it's not trivial.

    The best answer to the excess gas production is to rebuild our electric power infrastructure; if there's enough gas production we should reward producers for putting power back onto the grid (they can use the gas to run generators locally).

    They also had the option of just slowing down production some in order to not destroy our planet. $$$ took precedence

    good luck convincing a company to slow production down; its akin to asking someone to take a pay cut "just because"

    This is why pretty much every economist that does not work for a conservative think take will say externalities often mean companies to need be internalized so the companies bear those costs or there needs to be regulation to limit those externalities. Externalities are a really basic idea and why people should expect profit oriented effiency to cause harm that needs to be regulated.

    Edit: Because Republicans reject even market based reforms like a carbon tax or discriminatory taxes designed to favor cleaner methods over dirtier ones in much the same way they reject market based health care reforms, they almost always support companies not having to bear any of the costs.

    Couscous on
    Gnome-InterruptustynicKruiteStabbity StyleMrVyngaardemp123FencingsaxHacksaw
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Ye gods do we need to drop lobbying and super PACs like, well, like it’s getting hot.

    It won’t solve everything, but can’t fucking hurt.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    CalicaKruiteMr Fuzzbutt
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Climate change threads have been arbitrarily halved in population. Seems like there is a joke there about the appropriate way to fix climate change.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Climate change threads have been arbitrarily halved in population. Seems like there is a joke there about the appropriate way to fix climate change.

    :snap:

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    Mild ConfusionKruiteBlackDragon480Stabbity StyleMarekDedwrekkaJebus314EncGnome-Interruptusjimb213emp123FencingsaxHacksawNobeardJaysonFourForar
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Is there any chance that someone is actually planning on writing the Green New Deal or is it just going to remain conceptual politics forever?

  • 38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    It seems unlikely unless Democrats get a super-majority of the Senate. Even then, not all democrats appear to be on-board.

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    On board for what though? Right now everyone is arguing about sections of a bill that doesn't exist, even on paper.

    On the one hand it seems dumb for people to oppose stipulations that don't exist.
    On the other it seems dumb for people to have reached a deadlock in negotiating the wording of a deal before it's even in the rough draft phase.

    So far the only thing to even get ink to paper was a non-binding resolution that said that Congress should write a deal, and even that was shot down.

    Nothing is in the Green New Deal, because no one has written even a rough draft of it yet.

  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez



    I thought this was lovely.

    People criticize the Green New Deal for not being concrete enough but you have to start with a big vision before you can get to the concrete details. When JFK called for us to land on the moon in a decade no one knew how the heck we were gonna do it exactly.

    w4c8g6uf3igi.jpg
    tynicBlackDragon480SkeithEnc38thDoeMayabirdCelestialBadgerMild ConfusionthatassemblyguyskyknytBrainleechHacksawStyrofoam SammichjkylefultonShortyDoctorArchJaysonFour
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    edited May 2019
    Indonesia is planning on moving its capital city from Jakarta to somewhere off the island of Java partially due to climate change. The city is already sinking while the seas rise and current estimates are that 95% of the city will be submerged within thirty years. It's not uncommon for countries to move their capitals, but it's something we'll probably be seeing a lot more of in the coming decades.

    Mayabird on
    BullheadGnome-InterruptusPhoenix-DthatassemblyguySkeithwandering
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    The Mauna Loa observatory on Hawaii reported 415,26 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the highest level in 3 million years. At that time, sea levels were several meters higher than today, and the Antarctic was covered in lush forests.

    We are going full speed towards a state very different from that humanity and civilization evolved in, says Ralph Keeling, leader of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography's CO2. All of humanity's history has been in colder climate than it is today.

    We can expect this year's CO2 increase to be the highest ever, 3 ppm (average is 2.5 ppm). A level of 350 ppm is required to avoid the effects of climate change.

    We do not see the full consequences of 451 ppm today. It will take mankind a thousand years to pay the price for what we do today, says Prof. Rob Jackson of Stanford University.

    Source: NRK (Norway's public broadcaster; in Norwegian.)

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited May 2019

    Fuck...

    For those that want the estimated ppm and temp impact they came up with, and the link to the pdf https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf
    Year     CO2 PPM     Temp Increase
    1979     337          0
    1990     355          0.22
    2000     374          0.25
    2015     409          0.84
    2050     450          1.25
    2080     516          1.84
    2080     640          2.78
    2090     588          3.09
    

    Veevee on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    This is exactly why there isn't any such thing as "finding middle ground" or "negotiating baby steps" with the GOP and climate deniers.

    The industries causing the most harm to the planet fucking knew what was happening and straight-up lied to us about it. If they had actually wanted us to start solving this with less-extreme measures decades ago, they could have done so. But they literally put short-term profits above our survival.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    skyknyt[Expletive deleted]FencingsaxBullheadSleepMaijinamuroNobeardjimb213Al_watMild ConfusionShortyVeagleMvrckDoodmannJaysonFourDac
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    I kinda wish at least civil penalties would occur as a result of them selling out the human race and lying about this basically my whole life.

    This machine kills threads.
    CalicaBullheadOrcaMild ConfusionSmrtnikJaysonFour
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited May 2019
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    This is exactly why there isn't any such thing as "finding middle ground" or "negotiating baby steps" with the GOP and climate deniers.

    The industries causing the most harm to the planet fucking knew what was happening and straight-up lied to us about it. If they had actually wanted us to start solving this with less-extreme measures decades ago, they could have done so. But they literally put short-term profits above our survival.

    There's a long term side to it, too. Not a better side, but a side: The same companies have basically had a stranglehold on the energy industry since it came into existence, and have managed to entrench themselves globally with some very generous deals from basically every government. Even while the main fuels and the government sweetheart deals have changed, the actual market players have been quite stable.

    BP especially has boasted about the money they spend in solar and wind research. They're not lying, but they are competing outside their wheelhouse a decade behind their competition. The next round of long term government sweetheart deals are, for the first time effectively ever, not going to go to them the way things stand, and right now they're not closing the gap. So they move the goalposts just hoping they'll land a hail mary in the next down.

    Hevach on
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    So they knew all along and said / did jack shit. Doesn't this count as like, premeditated murder of the planet?

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    CalicaBullheadBloodsheedAngel_of_BaconkimeCimmeriiJaysonFourIceBurner
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Man how could they have such an accurate model without fully understanding the inputs hmmmmmmn

    BlackDragon480skyknytBullheadBloodsheed
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I mean, it's the exact same as the tobacco company doctors.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    BullheadSleepBloodsheedNobeardDarkPrimusOrcaMild ConfusionHefflingShortyHacksawSmrtnikYoshisummonsShadowhopeJaysonFourIceBurner
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited May 2019
    So I've basically been avoiding this thread because I can't seem to control my nihilism around this topic, which in turn leads me to having decision paralysis about decisions regarding the future. I'm working through it, but you generally probably won't see me around these parts, but i felt the need to share some rare good news.

    E: whoops, hit post. Editing in now, if you read this come back in 5.

    E2: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/05/15/some-corals-in-hawaii-thrive-in-warm-acidic-water/#.XNyNnZNKhTY
    Climate change is decimating coral reefs. As humans put greenhouse gasses into Earth’s atmosphere, they warm the planet before settling back down into the oceans and making the water more acidic. These combined factors have caused coral die-offs around the world. But now researchers have found a set of corals in Hawaii’s Kāne’ohe Bay that can already tolerate warmer temperatures and more acidic waters. Scientists are calling them “supercorals.” These corals even bounced back after sewage decimated the bay less than 30 years ago. Scientists say the discovery offers hope for reef resilience.

    ...

    Kāne’ohe Bay hugs the island of Oahu’s eastern coast. Between 1930 and 1970, dredging, coastal development, and sewage dumped into the bay destroyed up to 95 percent of the reefs. But once sewage outputs were relocated around 1978, the corals bounced back. Within two decades, coral cover blossomed to between 50 percent and 95 percent. Even more astounding is that the reefs rebounded in waters that are already warmer and more acidic than neighboring waters.

    “I began to realize that the temperature and chemistry conditions in Kāne’ohe Bay are very similar to the conditions that many people predict will kill corals off globally, yet the reefs in the bay seem to be thriving, making the area incredibly valuable as a possible window into the future,” Jury said.

    The researchers collected branches of three dominant coral species from about two dozen colonies in Kāne’ohe Bay and Waimānalo Bay, just 11 miles to the southeast. Then, back in the laboratory, they exposed some of the corals to warm or acidic waters in aquariums for five weeks.

    They found corals from Kāne’ohe Bay tolerated warmer and more acidic waters better than the corals from Waimānalo Bay. The corals from Kāne’ohe Bay also grew more than twice as fast as the Waimānalo Bay corals, the team reported Tuesday in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

    “In contrast with many projections, we find that at least these corals do in fact harbor a lot of individual variation for temperature and chemistry tolerance and that the hardy members of the population were able to drive rapid reef recovery in Kāne’ohe Bay in spite of the warmer, more acidic conditions found there,” Jury said.

    Jragghen on
    NobeardkimemRahmaniGnome-InterruptusEncBullhead38thDoetynicemp123SkeithYoshisummonsTofystedethJaysonFour
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Additionally, while i know this concept is borderline mastubatory for all the good it does big picture, I'm going to start actively contributing to https://www.cooleffect.org/

    Carbon offsets aren't the answer. But they're an answer, or a part of a larger answer that is something which would be needed, and while I'm working on my footprint (just got a significantly more efficient furnace and HVAC, I limit myself to beef one meal a week and go pescetarian two days a week, we pay a lot more to live close to work such that I put relatively few miles on my car annually, I've basically drawn a line in the sand on our next car being minimum plug in hybrid, etc), I just feel like this might be the step that makes me feel like I'm doing something more. I hate that most people who do them seem to fall into the category of "well, I've offset MY usage so my conscience is clean", and I'm not going to stop there, but at the same time it's a way to kinda feel less guilty about visiting family and such.

    Gnome-Interruptus38thDoeFoolOnTheHilltynicTofystedeth
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Planet earth is going to be just fine. It's us that's gonna be fucked by climate change.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    Commander ZoomBlackDragon480KarozFencingsaxOrcaSleepGSMGnome-InterruptusEncBullheadHefflingShortyFoolOnTheHillemp123HacksawSkeithSmrtnikthatassemblyguyJohnny ChopsockyTofystedethShadowhopeJaysonFour
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited May 2019
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Planet earth is going to be just fine. It's us that's gonna be fucked by climate change.

    For me its a question of whether humanity or other future intelligent life can hit the technological singularity (which I define as complete independence from natural systems) and make it off Earth permanently. Can technological advancement outpace the environmental destruction it causes? If our economic capability drops below a threshold, key industries required for the singularity will no longer be sustainable.

    If we can't, that is a pretty nihilistic scenario, since being trapped on the Earth is a death sentence as our star is going to expand and bake the atmosphere right off in a few billion years.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Planet earth is going to be just fine. It's us that's gonna be fucked by climate change.

    It makes me sad that humanity might die out while there's still so much to learn about the universe.

    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.
    kimethatassemblyguyThe_Infidel
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited May 2019
    Jephery wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Planet earth is going to be just fine. It's us that's gonna be fucked by climate change.

    For me its a question of whether humanity or other future intelligent life can hit the technological singularity (which I define as complete independence from natural systems) and make it off Earth permanently. Can technological advancement outpace the environmental destruction it causes? If our economic capability drops below a threshold, key industries required for the singularity will no longer be sustainable.

    If we can't, that is a pretty nihilistic scenario, since being trapped on the Earth is a death sentence as our star is going to expand and bake the atmosphere right off in a few billion years.

    I'm not... I'm not sure that's what the Singularity is.

    Like, the singularity is generally understood, I thought, as "the point at which we can no longer keep up with the advancement of technology, because it's rate outpaces our ability to keep track"

    But the thing you're talking about... I'm not sure that's really a thing in a materialistic universe? like, we'll always have to coexist with natural systems in some capacity, unless somehow a manner in which to reshape the basic foundations of reality itself is discovered.

    Getting off earth and being able to utilize the resources of the greater universe may allow us to live in something more harmonious to existing ecosystems (harnessing solar power, gathering mineral resources from otherwise lifeless celestial bodies, etc.) without having to raze them to continue existence. But ultimately we're going to always have to keep in mind some kind of balance to make sure we're not fucking over the ability for life as we know it to survive by the method we're using to keep ourselves going currently.

    EDIT: Unless like, you just mean "naturalistic systems" to mean a closed ecosystem with limited resources, in which case a certain level of technological advancement should be able to help us get away from that, but we'd still need to be smart and careful about how we use the resources we find in the wider solar system and beyond.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    L Ron Howard
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited May 2019
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Planet earth is going to be just fine. It's us that's gonna be fucked by climate change.

    For me its a question of whether humanity or other future intelligent life can hit the technological singularity (which I define as complete independence from natural systems) and make it off Earth permanently. Can technological advancement outpace the environmental destruction it causes? If our economic capability drops below a threshold, key industries required for the singularity will no longer be sustainable.

    If we can't, that is a pretty nihilistic scenario, since being trapped on the Earth is a death sentence as our star is going to expand and bake the atmosphere right off in a few billion years.

    I'm not... I'm not sure that's what the Singularity is.

    Like, the singularity is generally understood, I thought, as "the point at which we can no longer keep up with the advancement of technology, because it's rate outpaces our ability to keep track"

    But the thing you're talking about... I'm not sure that's really a thing in a materialistic universe? like, we'll always have to coexist with natural systems in some capacity, unless somehow a manner in which to reshape the basic foundations of reality itself is discovered.

    Getting off earth and being able to utilize the resources of the greater universe may allow us to live in something more harmonious to existing ecosystems (harnessing solar power, gathering mineral resources from otherwise lifeless celestial bodies, etc.) without having to raze them to continue existence. But ultimately we're going to always have to keep in mind some kind of balance to make sure we're not fucking over the ability for life as we know it to survive by the method we're using to keep ourselves going currently.

    By natural systems I mean Earth's biospheric natural systems. For me, the singularly means directly harnessing the power of the sun into what we want and need instead of relying on Earth's natural systems to process that power for us in the form of biochemical processes and ocean-atmosphere systems. The Earth only captures a marginal cross section of the Sun's energy output, and as we capture more and more of that energy, more and more becomes feasible. Right now we rely on the stored biochemical energy of eons ago.

    The two definitions are largely equivalent. Achieving one would be achieving the other.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Planet earth is going to be just fine. It's us that's gonna be fucked by climate change.

    For me its a question of whether humanity or other future intelligent life can hit the technological singularity (which I define as complete independence from natural systems) and make it off Earth permanently. Can technological advancement outpace the environmental destruction it causes? If our economic capability drops below a threshold, key industries required for the singularity will no longer be sustainable.

    If we can't, that is a pretty nihilistic scenario, since being trapped on the Earth is a death sentence as our star is going to expand and bake the atmosphere right off in a few billion years.

    I'm not... I'm not sure that's what the Singularity is.

    Like, the singularity is generally understood, I thought, as "the point at which we can no longer keep up with the advancement of technology, because it's rate outpaces our ability to keep track"

    But the thing you're talking about... I'm not sure that's really a thing in a materialistic universe? like, we'll always have to coexist with natural systems in some capacity, unless somehow a manner in which to reshape the basic foundations of reality itself is discovered.

    Getting off earth and being able to utilize the resources of the greater universe may allow us to live in something more harmonious to existing ecosystems (harnessing solar power, gathering mineral resources from otherwise lifeless celestial bodies, etc.) without having to raze them to continue existence. But ultimately we're going to always have to keep in mind some kind of balance to make sure we're not fucking over the ability for life as we know it to survive by the method we're using to keep ourselves going currently.

    By natural systems I mean Earth's biospheric natural systems. For me. the singularly means directly harnessing the power of the sun into what we want and need instead of relying on Earth's natural systems to process that power for us in the form of biochemical processes.

    The two definitions are largely equivalent. Achieving one would be achieving the other.

    That actually finally clicked for me after I posted, does my edit follow your meaning?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
Sign In or Register to comment.