We're all hopelessly fucked because of global warming

go start a thread if you feel like arguing about psuedoscience

...

Honestly it feels hopeless at this point. By the time it gets bad enough to actually make people think "oh shit we need to do something" we will already be well past the point of no return

We are all going to die because coal and gas companies would rather see the whole world burn then lose a single cent of profit. I hope I at least live long enough to see them all get ripped to shreds by the angry masses they've damned.

Where is really safe though? Inland may be safe from the tsunamis but what about the droughts, tornadoes, or other types of heavy storm? Where should I build my bunker?

yeah, it may lead to the end of capitalism, but it's going to be a fucking nightmare for decades probably while all of the conflict and death is occurring.

Read The Water Knife by Paolo Bacigalupi if you want to develop a (post)cyberpunky sense of what this collapse might look like in the American Southwest. I'm 100 pages in and it's been an enjoyable read so far.

Future generations are going to look back on ours with such bitterness. That is, if they're ever taught the truth.

I am afraid. Legitimately afraid. What we're seeing now are the results of the 1970s. What on earth is going to happen in the years to come?

Buy land far from population centers and far from the coast. Learn to grow food.

Reminder there was a drought in Syria leading up to the civil war.

Jesus imagine what Stalingrad looked like…

That's prepper shit. A good, strong community can be vital to survival in tough times. Bunkering down in an urban area where everyone participates in civic life can do a lot more to protect you in times of conflict and shortages.

If we hit 3.5C above baseline by mid-century, as this article is predicting, I don't think any kind of prepping is going to matter.

The seas will max at 200ft above current when all the ice melts.

Protip: don't live in florida

t. doesn't know what happens when there's more people than food

What good is your rural bunker commune if the drought hits your territory and your crops all die? Good luck storing five years' worth of food, medicine, water, etc. And if you ever get injured or robbed, or need something, you'll be miles away from help.

At least if you're in a population center and the food runs out, you'll have a chance to get aid packages.

does anyone have a map of the land that will still be above water in these scenarios? The best land to buy must be the land that's on the edge of the future shoreline or riverside, right?

So the bourgeois revolution could end up killing us all, and bourgeois efforts to squash socialism may also have doomed us by virtue of them trying to "end history". Fuck, this is just great. Too ironic. By ending history they cause the extinction of humanity! Isn't that appropriate? Isn't it justice? Hegel will be crowned the penultimate philosopher and Marx his prophet.

Bangladesh will literally disappear from the map if that's the case. Can you imagine a migration that enormous? I can't; it's crazy. And that's just one part of the world.

we're looking at the greatest migration in human history
ironically aided by rightwingers

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

welp. guess Cuban socialism will be done for.

good viewing if you want to make peace with the impending disaster:
Quiet Country Cafe / Yokohama Kaidaishi Kikou

I like how it's saying this is thousands of years into the future while we're looking at this over the next century or two, and that's an optimistic view.

Honestly, if we as a species keep putting sociopaths into positions of power, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the human race.

All I ask is that we are either abducted by aliens or killed swiftly. It's not the apocalypse that's the bad part, it's slowly dying of starvation that gets me.

I guess I've always had a juvenile desire to see it all come crashing down, but the reality is that my pathetic life is only going to get exponentially worse.

It's stunning to think that I'll see partial or perhaps total societal collapse in my lifetime. How many social safety nets and other trappings of our government will come unraveled when the upper capitalist class decides that they're going to keep whatever they can get their hands on, and how disturbing is it that according to this article precisely what they are going to be outmaneuvering the proletariat to obtain and hoard is food. Fucking FOOD that people just so happen to need to live.

We are going to have our standards for what constitutes a humanitarian catastrophe lowered quite abruptly. GG No Re.

I say 5, 7 years and we're toast

Also don't worry, the bourgeoisie will have their bunkers

youtube.com/watch?v=cLy6AXjwQK8

...

what an interesting music video

ignore flag

Japan is so fucked if this happens. Tokyo and many other urban areas simply won't exist. The rest of the country is mountainous and unsuitable for agriculture and urban development. They are also resource-poor, and add water shortages to this as well.

I already knew it was bad, very bad, but it seems climate change is happening far, far quicker than I knew. I thought there was more time, but there isn't. There's less by the year. Thinking about it, this is the greatest betrayal in the history of humanity. It is absolute madness.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

third impact
youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

HUMAN EXTINCTION BY 2035

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Welp, I had an odd spurt of motivation to study socialism these past couple months. It did a bit to energize me, I suppose. I had a kind of pipe dream that I could help get the ball rolling, help to build a tiny little movement that would grow and maybe make some modest gains when I'm an old man. Now I guess that's all fucked, and any revolutionaries 50 years from now are going to be fighting over scraps of whatever the hell is left.

Maybe I'm just easily discouraged.

I have reading to do today but all I'm doing at the moment is fighting the denial and disbelief. It's one thing to know that we're fucked in a hundred or a thousand years, it's quite another to know a 3.5C increase will likely happen before 2050. I just came on here to do a little shitposting not get knocked for six.

It's not fair. I grew up believing we were destined for the stars. Why did it have to end like this?

no fucking way could it kill us that soon
Fuck

Fire up those bunkers boys

Its funny how I seem to almost forget how doomed we are sometimes.

Judging by these reports, add a well and an insulated air conditioned greenhouse to the shopping list. Who knew we were going to practice living on mars, right here on earth.

Are you all trolling?

2035

I'll be 43, many millions of people will be 10 years old and younger, not even given a chance to be shitty human beings, born to starve.

FRANK DRAKE WAS RIGHT

THIS IS WHY THERE ARE NO ALIENS

IT'S THE GREAT FILTER

NO SPECIES MAKE IT PAST THIS POINT

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

It's really not a joke at this point.

Aquifers all throughout the Midwest are rapidly being depleted, and any aquifers nearer to the coast will be inundated with seawater and essentially destroyed i.e. Sacramento.

My shopping list is nice and short, a whole fuck-ton of fentanyl and ketamine off of the darknet.

Well, write it down somewhere that I consider climate change a joke.

If capitalists managed to finally fuck up California beyond any salvation, this doesn't mean the end of the world for everyone else.

if what was supposed to happen in 2100 is happening in 2035, how do we know it won't be fucking 2025?
i thought automation was going to wreck capitalism, but fuck. this might do it first

Is global warming fearmongering the present day version of Posadism?

apparently it's happening so fast you'll be able to eat your words

Stalinist who doesn't take the environment seriously, what a surprise.

kill yourself faggot. last time I checked, NASA weren't Posadists, but they do predict that global warming is going to cause massive problems.

kek

there is no god

WHAT THE FUCK WERE WE THINKING?

WE'RE A YEAST, OUR NUMBERS GREW WITH THE FOOD SUPPLY, NOW IT'S TIME FOR THE DYOFF

I have needed this all my life

I was worried I got slightly autistic for not noticing that this thread was a joke. Now I'm worried about you.

Your pretty pic is Aral Sea, right?

AFAIK Soviets rerouted quite a few rivers to irrigation systems in the 60s. That's when it begun to dry out. Not because of some global warming.

It's called end of minor Ice Age, not WEAREALLGOINGTODIENOW.

...

We're not all going to die at once. Max predicted temperature from the data we have today is 6C above baseline while 3.5C is considered, and I can't believe I'm writing this, a potential extinction level event. How bad can it get? We'll see.

You do realise that all water evaporates? And if there isn't enough water flowing in, the lake/sea or whatever will dry out?

kill yourself shitposter.

REALLY MAKES YA THINK

That's fine. The world's superpowers have secretly collaborating to build a multi-generational interstellar colony ship that will send us to live on a Earth-like planet they've found in another solar system, right? Right?

Science save us
I'm starting to think that idea of founding our own country of self-sustainable bunkers in Antarctica with nuclear power and hydroponics isn't such a bad idea

so you're asserting co2 levels have been higher according to that graph? bullshit

and, just because co2 levels were once at a point high as they are now, doesn't mean their won't be catastrophic effects. and it doesn't mean we're not behind the current rise

You'll move to Siberia voluntarily?

I'm educating you, ignoramus.

There is no way you can spin Aral Sea as drying out due to global warming. Soviets literally re-routed two major rivers that were keeping Aral sea full.

Besides, compare your pic to real data.

He's right. If you look at the millions of years period, we're near our coldest point in planetary history. I'm trying to find data on why ocean acidification will kill all the plankton if this has happened in the past.

He's not talking about global warming, autist. He's saying the USSR redirected flow from the Aral sea without consideration of its environmental effects.

he wasn't trying to say the aral sea drying was caused by global warming , m8. he was saying stalin didn't care about the environment

i live you too user.

Well, I can't associate Aral Sea drying up with Stalinism. Actual balls-to-wall rerouting happened under Khrushchev.

I take that back. We were completely frozen over at one point.

just admit it, you're an autistic retard. fuck off from this thread.

So can you stop dickriding Stalin for a sec so we can get back to laughing at the graph that you posted that proves nothing? Thanks.

Admit what? Not sharing your delusions? Not being brainwashed into unthinking obedience to mass-media?

That's uncertain. Either way, we are not going to go extinct any time soon.

Due to climate change, at the very least.

And "we" does not include California. Enjoy your new desert.

Who cares if its been higher before human civilization? Before there were 6-7 billion people? What possible relevance does that have?

The last ice age almost killed us all in conjunction with the supervolcano explosion of Toba. It took us 200,000 years to recover. What the fuck are temperatures exceeding 3.5C going to do to us? Will we ever recover? Those are the stakes.

We are already past the point of no return.

How underage are you that that's the only high profile drought you've heard of

Ah, crap, misread the article. It took us 200k to reach our first billion. Scratch that. Rest of it still stand.

1) There was no "us" 200k years ago.
2) Either worry about Ice Age, or global warming.
3) Stuff like Toba happens routinely. It doesn't extinguish life on planet.

Billion of what?

It's the drought that drives "global warming" hysteria. Also, the most blatant example of how capitalism destroys planet.

Yeah mane it sure is so disempowering having solar panels on my roof for free energy and driving an EV i don't have to pay for gas for

Their is drought throughout the entire West and Great plains you fucking idiot and that's just the states. Tell me, what other parts of the world do you not care about outside of your little Euro-trash pit?

MISTAKES INTO MIRACLES Holla Forums

BEST BE GETTING YER WAR RIG READY NOW

Are you telling me photovoltaic power is ecologically clean?

It's hideously poisonous to produce solar panels. And they don't even last that long.

I dun fucked up.
npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c
70k years ago Toba nearly wiped us out due to it worsening the Ice Age. The 200k is years it took for us to reach our first billion in human population.

Global warming has been "known" (much as you shills try to suppress it) for 4 decades. The Cali drought has been really bad for what, less than 10 years?

That wasn't the argument, faggot. Note the tactics of the shill: always changing stances and subjects, but always delivering the twin-pronged accusations of conspiracy and urges to return to passivism.

The article pretty is goofy in general. I mean, what's with comparing 70k year old volcano eruption to the ones that happened within last 2k?

When I say Toba-level eruptions are routine, i mean this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions

Something like this happens every 100-50 thousand years. And it is still within levels of human impact on environment. It's not pretty, but it's hardly "end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it".

Who am I shilling for if I'll tell, that eco-lobby is nothing but a propaganda machine for one group of capitalists to throw some dirt at the other group?

They are SocDem of science.

I'm a fucking Stalinist.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_exploration_and_production_companies

Good. Another charge when you get the wall.

When you will find out where I could get paid by the oil industry for "shilling", please inform me.

But I'm glad you are not defending "empowering solar panels".

...

There you go. Best land there is.

Does it takes into account only the water added in Ocean by ice melts, or does it also include the fact that hotter water is filling a larger volume for the same mass?

Wont that be the land most packed with refugees from the flooded areas?

Hello? Earth to user?

We are talking about actual sea level increase.

I think about it every day; it's terribly depressing. My greatest fear is that climate-induced collapse will mobilize bourgeois society to protect what they have against the masses, causing a massive wave of reactionary violence and repression. The abundance that could facilitate Communism will be lost to climate disasters and pollution, and the only response will be authoritarian police states, or barbarism.

My only hope is that a few short, sharp disasters will cause enough disruption to smash the bourgeois business-as-usual status quo, without causing massive loss of life, or damage to the means of production. Such a crisis could weaken the current power structures such that revolutionary anti-capitalist thought could take hold, and some kind of socialist program could take hold in the name of providing basic needs to the survivors, while mobilizing resources to try and stabilize the environment.

Is that picture trolling? 6 meters in less than two years by increasing a few millimetres yearly?

Is this better?

Better, but there are still grammar errors.

Well, if you were unable to find them, it's good enough.

It's going to be up to Gen X and Millennials to fix the shit the boomers left for us. I just hope the next generation (Gen Z?) doesn't look at our struggles and curse our failures.

...

Absolutely no problem here.

He was obviously able to find them.

You are the most insufferable person on this board.

At least I'm not the most butthurt.

it hasn't even started.

why?

You are distracting the political discourage form class, please go away porky.

Francis Fukuyama penned The End of History and the Last Man shortly after the end of the Cold War, basically arguing that Marx was wrong and that history ended with liberal capitalism. Hegel and Marx, by contrast, didn't argue that there was an "end" to history, but there was probably a goal that could be pursued; in Marx's case, that was communism. By stipulating that history ended with capitalism it's turned out that's exactly what's going to happen. I.e. civilizational collapse, and potentially extinction.

Well, I knew it was going to happen pretty soon but this is a little sooner than I thought. Things are going to be weird when people start dying.

Fukuyama was also channeling Alexandre Kojève when he made that end of history argument btw.

There goes 10% of the country's agriculture.

Google 'heartland institute'. They gave a guy 80k to set up and run WUWT.

Renewables are one part of the solution. Nuclear is a much better contender for seriously trying to offset it.

The issues that will arise from rapid (geologically speaking) warming are to to with the loss of arable land and the loss of coastal cities. Both will result in massive population movements. Essentially all progress stops cause we're chasing our tail trying to stop massive populations dying off.

Aquifers in the American West are being depleted at an astonishing rate as well

All so the rich can grow their almonds and water their fucking yards

as to OP, the article is OTT. After a 'pause' warming is back with a vengeance, with the last 14 months ALL setting record high temperatures globally. But we'll still not be 3.5 above (above what?) this century. The issues are real and serious, but not as alarming as the article says.

What's really going to be fun is when the shallow-sea areas return and we see the resurgence of titanoboa, sarcosuchus, and pliosaur.

You will never see the return of extinct animals, that's not how it works.

oh ye of little faith.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3714301/Could-bring-woolly-mammoth-life-Scientists-claim-reach-milestone-efforts-clone-hairy-beast.html

I meant naturally. Of course, it's very possible we could science shit.

Science is awesome. This world needs more science and less of everything else.

The only hope we have of surviving this mess is science, so here's hoping we support that. I know that there was that recent story on converting CO2 into hydrogen for fuel cell use, that would be pretty good.

I didn't mean literally

Here's a full map:

geology.com/sea-level-rise/

Let's just say that if the sea levels rise the whole 35 meters, most of the East Coast cities will be underwater. So will a decent chunk of northern Europe.

And Bangladesh is completely fucked.

Still, so long as the temperature rise doesn't destroy our sea life and ruin our ecosystem, and so long as the melting permafrost in Siberia doesn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect that will destroy all life on earth, we will only have the worst humanitarian disaster in human history.

Renewables are not a solution to anything. Not even part of. Only big hydro and solar dynamic are worth anything, but neither scales well. I.e. couldn't be used globally.

The only. And even there we need to go thermonuclear. You want to put money into ecology - you give them to CERN.

My point is - "Green" are SJWs of science. This is doubly true for "climate change" - 98% of which is outright nonsense designed for publicity and witch hunts, to sell crap to people (PV obsession is literally killing the planet) or to mess with the competition.

I'd call this nonsense a "spook", except we already have a word for it. Bourgeoisie pseudoscience. Lysenko has nothing on ecologists.

Fixed.

Shit, sometimes I wonder why I'm not a nihilist.

...

And here I thought all the idiot climate change deniers were right-wing.

I like to think that horseshoe theory is retarded, but then I see shit like this.

ehh…. this sounds impossible to me. But you're right. Science is the answer. The issue is political. How do you tell India and China to stop polluting when we've done so for 100 years longer then they?

What really needs to be done (once the political issue is sorted)

Agree an upper limit on co2 (450ppm)
Help developing countries skip the dirty coal stages of development
large investment in carbon capture and reforestation

Course there are shekels to be made so those who stand to profit are in no hurry.

A bigass solar(with hydro for storage) could power all of Australia. Same for Africa. Wind and the likes are good for community level projects.

Jeez. Wish I was on my other PC. I've got folders on folders of stuff from having this argument on otherchan. The most basic breakdown I've got is a few questions.

Is co2 a ghg?
Is the greenhouse effect real?
Is human activity responsible for the observed accumulation of atmospheric co2?

I'd argue we want to avoid making the world objectively worse (all the effects I mentioned here that you ignored ) before worrying about the economic.

Daily reminder: the biggest contributor to environmental problems is animal agriculture; it also causes havoc on land and ocean biodiversity and thus natural carbon sinks.

;~; no not the whales

… No. There aren't any hydrogen atoms in CO2, so unless we achieve some major scientific breakthrough that allows us to economically split smaller atoms like Carbon and Oxygen into Hydrogen (in which case we won't need fuel cells, cause you just found a practically infinite source of energy), that's not gonna happen.

You can do it indirectly, though, using CO2 and water to make hydrocarbons. We already have the technology for that. It's called plants.

discovering the germ theory was a mistake

Maybe the anti-civs have a point…

No.

Sorry, I meant hydrocarbons. Someone made an artificial system that does the same shit that plants do.

Oh. Well that's awesome. Better build a bunch of them quick, then, if we want to replace all the lost plankton in time.

Yeah, it's going to be vital to fighting what we're going to be dealing with in the coming decades.

Science: Fixing everything it broke.

Give me numbers.

Let me ask you one question before that: how exactly do the ecologists tell people to solve the problems?

By voting in Green parties? (because electing people that work against Capitalist interests in Capitalist-controlled and Capitalist-designed system totally works).

By buying hip "clean" gadgets? (because market knows best and we can totally trust advertising).

By justifying economical sanctions against other nations? (because our politicians are honest and do not lie).

It's practical application that matters.

As i've pointed out - I do not deny the actual impact (>>844453). But I find absolute and overwhelming majority of data to be deliberately exaggerated and misinterpreted to suit the needs of customers. It is absolutely unusable as is.

Exactly. Choose the lesser evil. Again. And again. And again. Forever.

What is there to argue with? Not a single thing there could be resolved by keeping Capitalists in power.

It's called chemistry. Or, you know, fucking electrolysis - splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Have you ever been to school?

Yeah no. Photosynthesis is a different process.

Global warming is good news comrades. It means we're close.

I'm not a posadist.

Well there's your problem.

Really makes you think…

Big. But solar is relativly low maintanance and the sun is reliable.

What the hell else we going to do with thousands of sq miles of desert?

Or just having the parties already there take seriously the issue.

Industry should be forced to change before the consumer.

I'd propose carrot and stick, but only after we've agreed a point (450ppm) not to reach.

The rest of your post is crazy reasoning. Don't try rectify our pollution problems cause capitalism? I assure you, global warming will kick our ass before the world is developed enough for communism. And if all out resources are going to relocating a billion plus people and feeding them, progress stops.

You're such a cancerous shitposter that it pains me to have to debunk each one of your points.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
There is no shortage of hydro power available.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
HURR DURR PEOPLE CAN LIE THEREFORE IT'S FALSE

Yes you do you fucking faggot. You deny catastrophic effects of global warming in our lifetimes outright. As well as the efficacy of any non-fossil fuel non-nuclear power source.

NONE of which you have proven.

As opposed to making no choice and dying like a dog. Choosing the lesser evil is the only choice available when you're not in charge. You're not in charge. And none of your stalinist power fantasies will change that.

No it doesn't. Your posts suggest you're more concerned with animals than the environmental issues at large. You can only afford such thinking because generations of your ancestors ate meat.

Photosynthesis is basically Solar Power + CO2 => (something) + Oxygen

1) Get electricity from solar power cell.
2) Electrolyze water => get Hydrogen and Oxygen (breathe oxygen)
3) Take CO2 and Hydrogen you got from water, use Sabatier reaction (CO2 + 4H2 => CH4 + H2O) to get methane and the same amount of water you had before.
4) Go back to step #1

Now find a fucking difference that matters.

Much persuaded. Very convinced.

That's not the point. The point is EROEI. How much will it cost and how much energy will we get, if we try to run a cable from Sahara to London.

Green = SocDem.

HA. Third world nations are clamoring to save their wildlife if first world nations agreee to cooperate. Of course the US always refuses.

mee again

K, so I didn't load up your paper before. But it sounds like what it is saying is we should breed more whales and use them as carbon batteries. kek.

Not an argument faggot.

I care about animals, because I care about biodiversity, which would imply environment. Anyways /projecting

nutritionfacts.org/video/whats-the-natural-human-diet/
review.ucsc.edu/fall07/Rev_F07_pp22-23_WeAreWhatTheyAte.pdf
cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

The act of cooking which allowed us to get more out of ingredients nutrient-wise which improved brain size was almost certainly most effective in relation to meats rather than other foods. We weren't carnivores, nobody's saying that, but meat eating is an important part of how humans came to be what we are.

That's not what I suggested. Africa has great potential for solar so they should use it. Solar isn't that expensive and maintenance is cheap. Also no fuel required so running costs are low too. I've not said we should go full renewable. But to rule it out where it is practical seems ideological.

China is currently planning a 2 GW solar guy in the Mongolian desert. Take a handful of these and all of Africa is powered for the next 50 years.

Watch and read those links, eating meat wasn't more important than just eating plants, which is what we ate for the vast majority of our evolution.

t.porky

So do you care also about securing the existence of your people and a future for your children?

Inb4 that movie wasn't even that recent.

Cybernetics when?

lol

Capitalism caused this to some extent and moving away from it would help make this less likely in the future, but this is real.

I would like to repeat that my point was about applying renewables globally:

Was never suggested.

If I cared about animals, environment, and biodiversity would that not include humans? Project more.

Pic related.

...

This is why {{{they}}} should be made to lead the way. The producers and manufacturers who profit so obscenely should be made to, at gunpoint if needed, foot the bill for reinvesting in cleaner technologies. Now you might want to call me an idealist right now, but just remember where we are.

The majority, yes, but specifically the jump in brain size in relation to cooking foods was most likely helped by cooking meat in particular. Without that, we wouldn't have the high-level communication skills that we have today.

I've yet to meet a vegan that wasn't a crybaby anarchkidde or a smelly hippy.

Yeah. Succinct and to the point.

Uh huh.

...

Present.

t. marxist vegan

I have yet to meet an "omnivore"/tankie that doesn't resort to fallacies.

Holla Forums would have got it…

Will you be okay with eating meat once we create it artificially and it uses vastly less resources? Since that will be really important to survive.

Funny how he stands to directly benefit from government subsidies and grants, huh?

There's no reason to be vegan except for moral reasons and othet such spooks.

Holy shit I can't believe breast cancer was fake this whole time.

Then I see we've been talking past each other. My bad.

C'mon man. Really? If this was Holla Forums I'd call you a heartland shill and believe it to be true.

There is, though, the production of livestock is massively inefficient and bad for the climate if you believe that to be a real problem. Methane gas is like CO2 on meth.

Methane is also measured in parts per billion as opposed to million. So is magnitudes less significant at present.

Just think of what we could do with all that arable land we use for crops to feed livestock with.

Yes, because more things make CO2 than make methane, but since they both contribute to the same problem it sorta makes sense to try and deal with both rather than fighting one and shrugging at the other.

Fair play. But I think cleaning up industry is cheaper and more practical than trying to reform the human diet at an international level.

Both will require massive changes in how we societally accept waste and abundance of goods in order to properly deal with this threat, though I will admit that we aren't quite at the point where we could go completely without animal farming since that is vital for feeding the poor who at least as of current cannot afford the full variety of plant goods necessary for staying relatively healthy.

Why would want to eat anything other than what nature intended and what I evolved to eat? If it doesn't have high cholesterol, sat. fat, sodium, endotoxins, inflammatory qualities, etc. I might consider it on a cheat day. Also shitty plant-based meat alternatives for transitioning exist today that taste good, if not better than the real thing.

Health, environment, not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings.

I have tried them, they don't taste as good. It's okay to want to go for the health approach, I'm cool with that, but you don't need to lie to people.

Farming animals for a growing population isn't more practical, plants are far more sustainable and cheaper to produce.

Saturated fat and sodium aren't bad for you.

Maybe quorn was just a bad example.

You do have a point here. And this will likely have to be addressed somehow down the line.

unless we degrowth

Soya beans is the most mutated and cancerous plant on earth.

It's not "go vegan or you get cancer". You get cancer anyway.
It's not meat. It's capitalism.

Por que no los dos?

Meat is still hugely inefficient to produce, for the simple fact that you're using your farmland to feed both the cows and the people who eat them, rather than just using it to feed the people. I love my beef and my butter, but if our population keeps growing, and especially if our our farmland starts shrinking, we're gonna have to cut down on our consumption.

You're probably eating products that haven't changed their recipe in over a decade because low competition, try "Beyond Meat." youtu.be/6iexA7Rw5Cg?t=299

Also, I don't advocate eating meat replacements because they're highly processed; learn to cook with whole food plants for optimal health and longevity.

That vast majority of crops including soy are feed to animals m8.

No, it's eat whole foods plant-based diet and significantly lower your chances of all cause mortality.

People would still want to consume animal products regardless of the ecosystem system, having a high population of people makes it worse. Besides, what's easier and more realistic in the short-term? Starting a revolution, or changing your lifestyle?

Dunno man. You appeared to endorse this nonsense above. >>845362

you can be a nihilist and still into politics and it doesn't make things feel any better.

Personally, I prefer to work with both raw meat ingredients and plants for the sake of making delicious meals since I cook for myself most of the time. I'll look into that meat substitute though, thanks for the suggestion.

WITNESS ME, BIJI ROJAVA

...

Fucking kill yourself. There is no decline in quality of life associated with switching to renewables.

economic system

this

Also
How old will you be? Me, 46.

What a wonderful life we'll have, seeing the human race suffocate.

Also also:
If you are not an antinatalist yet, you are either a moron or evil.

This, no one deserves to live.

I'm going to delete the derailing posts ITT and give Stalinfag a day ban.

bad idea.

the 2035 claim is dubious at best. Yes is an issue but alamism like this does more harm than good.

The actual souce for the claim is here

NOWHERE TO HIDE

ffs…

csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/Global-temperature-to-rise-3.5-degrees-C.-by-2035-International-Energy-Agency

Not a credible source.

The more I look into this claim the more dubious it becomes.

One hyperlink

Which takes you to

csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/Global-temperature-to-rise-3.5-degrees-C.-by-2035-International-Energy-Agency

Which was published in 2010.

So. Panic over OP. We're not all gonna die by 2035.

Maybe.

I'm starting to understand why people deny climate change. So much easier than trying to sort out the contradicting predictions.

christian science monitor is a credible source you faggot. IEA is a serious organization.

this was never, ever the thread topic.

How long till deleted? Methinks the time it takes BO to heat up a hotpocket.

This a better source?
m.motherjones.com/environment/2013/12/climate-scientist-environment-apocalypse-human-extinction?page=2

What?

STARTING A REVOLUTION!

We've warmed about 1 degree since 1880. This is quite a lot. NASA say 1C/1000 years is average though tehre are times it moves much quicker. The issue is we're already well out of the ice age. We shouldn't be warming by 1C in little over 100 years. But it's quite a leap to say we're going to manage another 2.5C in just 20 years. And yes, the seemingly wild nature of the predictions/models does put some people off.

The first article says IEA predicts warming of 3.5C by 2035 and ascribes places this claim in 2013. The link it provides is from 2010 making the same claim. And IEA is an advisory group formed from OECD members after the 70s oil crash. They may have scientists but they're hardly the best out there.

LARPer pls go

That does not disprove the claim.

Not really. Same article, same primary sources.

I've spent this whole thread arguing that AGW IS a real issue. But siding with sketchy claims just cause they support your narrative isn't doing any good.

like what? it's irrelevant if it's 2035 or 2050, we needed to act ten years ago. global warming is going to cause a catastrophe, period, the end. People have been called "ALARMIST" for decades now just because they stated that fact. You don't get through to anybody by toning things down.

No but that the source for a claim said to have been made in 2013 that dates back to 2010 suggests something is up.

It won't be 2050 either. I agree that we need to act yesterday, but not reading the source material (I was guilty of this too earlier ITT) doesn't convince anyone.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/4u9el8/in_2010_the_international_energy_agency_predicted/&ved=0ahUKEwjLs7iT363OAhXi5oMKHVEzDkgQFggtMAU&usg=AFQjCNG4AB4Cvtso-xYRsv9vRWrTWKaKuw&sig2=na2klV6To88duRxCBrK5pQ

Found this.

what is "IT" dude? we are ALREADY having droughts and floods amplified by global warming. It's ALREADY happening. Yes, by 2050, shit is going to be WAY WORSE. Same for 2035 or any other arbitrary date. The mass migrations aren't going to happen AFTER shit's underwater, they're going to happen when it becomes impossible to rebuild after each successive disaster.

good catch.

The article is based on the World Energy Outlook 2010 document from the IEA, which introduced a "New Policies Scenario" based on an analysis of political and economic factors the agency believed was more realistic than the previously developed "450 Scenario." The 450 Scenario would keep warming to within 2.0C of pre-industrial global climate with policies designed to keep atmospheric CO2 levels at or below 450ppm. The New Policies Scenario predicted a long-term leveling of global climate at 3.5C above pre-industrial levels with 600ppm atmospheric CO2. However, these forecasts are talking about temperature peaks after the year 2200, not even 2100 and certainly not 2035. They're the long-term outlook for maximum warming in the climate system.

450 is a recurring number as this is where NASA state shit gets dangerous (in an irreversible way)

It is 3.5C above pre-indistrial temperatures. I say one more time, I'm not contending the science. Just the 3.5 claim. If you tried to convince sceptics, and they looked at your links, you'd have the opposite effect to that desired.

How long do we haveto live?

Honestly? 450 is a game-changer, if not because it is some magical tipping point, but because if we can't agree globally to cap it then nothing will change. All current agreements are too vague and not ambitious enough.

Food security will disappear for 80-90% of the planet within 50 years. Along with all the other effects of climate disaster will result in global nuclear war by 2050.

Damn. That's some pretty postapocalyptic stuff. Kinda like Mad Marx.

Now I want to see that movie.

Antarcto-Communism is the future

...

...

nuclear winter is a discredited theory

>france24.com/en/20160807-earth-overshoot-day-resources-depleted-quickest-rate-ever-2016
JUST

FUCK UP MY RESOURCES FAM

...

Climate cooling/warming/change/exploding is a hoax.
CO2 has a threshold where it stops being relevant as a greenhouse grass. IT's conventient since it's easy to trade through the big banks, namely JP Morgan. And they are piggy backing off the Christian "original sin" that's hammered into all people.

And a newsflash: WE're going into a little ice age starting next year, globalists are just cashing out on the last burst of warmth before it goes cold.
youtu.be/T9I6sqDnmS8

Got any source on that CO2 has a threshold from you know, a climate scientist?

Nothing is written in the rules, but I've got banned and my posts were deleted for being "eco-revisionist".

Keep that in mind.

This is more an issue of overpopulation. And it's only going to get worse.

yeah that was harsh.

Assuming no positive feedback. Also ignores the 'acidification' of the oceans. Not to mention the warming seems to be picking up pace.

yeah no. We're still warming.

It is possible to filter CO2 from the atmosphere. All it requires is energy to create the right chemical agents, which can be produced with common materials. The synthesis of these agents requires energy, so using current coal, oil or gas based energy is pointless, since you would go in circles. Thorium reactors might not be commercial for some time. However, once they are they can produce energy without letting out more CO2. The energy produced by the thorium reactor can then be used to create the chemical agents required to filter the air. Most of it is fairly simple, which is why globalists don't care about global warming (aside from PR). They might even welcome it to some degree. Without global warming there wouldn't be Carbon Credits. Which they happily use to further control the global market.

Geoengineering is nice and all, and I hope that high technology megaprojects, combined with reducing consumption and population, could stabilize the earth and quality of life for the future. However, it is meaningless to talk about such projects under capitalism. The massive expense of such projects, and the lack of a clear means to profit from them, mean stuff like carbon sequestration or atmospheric shading will never happen. Unless we privatize the entire planet and atmosphere, capitalists will never fund such ambitious and altruistic solutions, and will be happy to continue exploiting while shit falls apart.

An essential imperative for advocating Communism is that it would free up so much human and physical resources that could realistically be used to address global climate change, instead of the maintenance of capitalist exploitation.

Carbon scrubbing should definitely feature in our response to rising co2, but I don't think we can scrub it as fast as we produce it so lowering output should still be a goal for now.

Is anarcha-greenie still here?

I'm having doubts about the validity of the claims that agriculture is such a big contribute. I accept cow farts increase methane. But beyond that, not so sure. Got any links or info?

I've done a bit of light research.

"- The 2°C Scenario (2DS) is the main focus of Energy Technology Perspectives. The 2DS lays out an energy system deployment pathway and an emissions trajectory consistent with at least a 50% chance of limiting the average global temperature increase to 2°C. The 2DS limits the total remaining cumulative energy-related CO2 emissions between 2015 and 2100 to 1 000 GtCO2. The 2DS reduces CO2 emissions (including emissions from fuel combustion and process and feedstock emissions in industry) by almost 60% by 2050 (compared with 2013), with carbon emissions being projected to decline after 2050 until carbon neutrality is reached.

- The 4°C Scenario (4DS) takes into account recent pledges by countries to limit emissions and improve energy efficiency, which help limit the long-term temperature increase to 4°C. In many respects the 4DS is already an ambitious scenario, requiring significant changes in policy and technologies. Moreover, capping the long-term temperature increase at 4°C requires significant additional cuts in emissions in the period after 2050.

- The 6°C Scenario (6DS) is largely an extension of current trends. Primary energy demand and CO2 emissions would grow by about 60% from 2013 to 2050, with about 1 700 GtCO2 of cumulative emissions. In the absence of efforts to stabilise the atmospheric concentration of GHGs, the average global temperature rise above pre-industrial levels is projected to reach almost 5.5°C in the long term and almost 4°C by the end of this century."
iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/

The following is taken from the IPCC 2014 report (attached).

"The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), which are used for making projections based on these factors, describe four different 21st century pathways of GHG emissions and atmospheric concentrations, air pollutant emissions and land use. The RCPs include a stringent mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), two intermediate scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP6.0) and one scenario with very high GHG emissions (RCP8.5). Scenarios without additional efforts to constrain emissions (’baseline scenarios’) lead to pathways ranging between RCP6.0 and RCP8.5"

"The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely to be 0.3°C to 1.7°C under RCP2.6, 1.1°C to 2.6°C under RCP4.5, 1.4°C to 3.1°C under RCP6.0 and 2.6°C to 4.8°C under RCP8.5"

"It is virtually certain that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced as global mean surface temperature increases, with the area of permafrost near the surface (upper 3.5 m) projected to decrease by 37% (RCP2.6) to 81% (RCP8.5) for the multi-model average (medium confidence). … The global glacier volume, excluding glaciers on the periphery of Antarctica (and excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets), is projected to decrease by 15 to 55% for RCP2.6 and by 35 to 85% for RCP8.5 (medium confidence)."

"The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence)." [See page 13 for some disquieting high confidence predictions.]

"In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). … Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world (high confidence)."

"A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial timescale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. … Stabilization of global average surface temperature does not imply stabilization for all aspects of the climate system. Shifting biomes, soil carbon, ice sheets, ocean temperatures and associated sea level rise all have their own intrinsic long timescales which will result in changes lasting hundreds to thousands of years after global surface temperature is stabilized. … There is high confidence that ocean acidification will increase for centuries if CO2 emissions continue, and will strongly affect marine ecosystems. … It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100, with the amount of rise dependent on future emissions."

"Magnitudes and rates of climate change associated with medium- to high-emission scenarios pose an increased risk of abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure and function of marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including wetlands (medium confidence). "

Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale, because most GHGs accumulate "over time and mix globally, and emissions by any agent (e.g., individual, community, company, country) affect other agents. Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently."

"In most scenarios without additional mitigation efforts (those with 2100 atmospheric concentrations >1000 ppm CO2-eq), warming is more likely than not to exceed 4°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 (Table SPM.1). The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities and limited potential for adaptation in some cases (high confidence)."

"Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, global emissions growth is expected to persist, driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 in baseline scenarios—those without additional mitigation—range from 3.7°C to 4.8°C above the average for 1850–1900 for a median climate response. They range from 2.5°C to 7.8°C when including climate uncertainty (5th to 95th percentile range) (high confidence). … Many models could not limit likely warming to below 2°C over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels if additional mitigation is considerably delayed. "

TL;DR 4-6C before 2100 is likely, barring massive efforts to reduce warming. That's bad, especially for plant and animal species, areas already in poverty and unstable politically, and will affect human civilization in a massive way beyond 2100.

Good posts.

RCP8.5 would indeed be bad. The figures it works with (2.6-4.8) assume a doubling of pre-industrial co2. IPCC puts direct forcing from co2 alone at an increase on 1.3C based on a doubling of co2 from pre-industrial (280ppm). This is the direct forcing of the co2 alone and assumes no feedback from water vapour or methane. So for the 2.6 you're looking co2 about 1100ppm. the 4.8 assumes some feedback.

I'd hope we don't get co2 anywhere that high this century, but without direct and focused action it is possible I guess. I also guess that my 'keep it to below 450' isn't going to happen.

...

I was gonna say that's alpha century til I checked the file-name. God I loved the old Civ games. 5 a shit though.

Anyone got any good resources for learning about climate change? I know almost nothing about it and am not even sure it's a thing so I'd like to learn.

'enjoy'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

Methane Hydrates - excerpts from Nick Breeze's interview with Natalia Shakhova at the European Geophysical Union in Vienna, 2012

youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ

Well assumed the claim about 2035 is true, there are really only two things you need to do.

Firstly, make sure you're not living anywhere close to the coast and at sea level, or your house is gonna flood.

Secondly, learn how to grow your own food. The temprature rise is going to decimate agriculture across the world, so food shortages are to be expected. If you can grow a couple carrots and potatoes and then live off whatever rations the government gives out though you should be fine.

Really as long as you're white and live in the first world, it's going to range from having your home displaced to inconvenience in terms of food and luxuries. We're not gonna die.

People outside of the first world countries though….oh boy.

I'm making a thread on /marx/ about it now.

8ch.net/marx/res/3867.html

I expect some Environmentally aware people to drop by there and present "evidence" they've promised me. You'll be able to get some practical insight regardless of the outcome.

Ever heard the term 'climate refugee'?

Well that sounds shit. Especially given permafrost has started to melt. And as if that wasn't bad enough…

commondreams.org/news/2016/08/01/melting-permafrost-releases-deadly-long-dormant-anthrax-siberia

We may get our happening after all.

Never been here before. Hopefully you don't get banned this time.

Also when you gonna finish cause I'm eager to jump in.

top kek

We're still probably going to need cybernetic implants at some point.

If pol was triggered about immigration now, just wait until the next few decades. Hoo boy.

Another 'good' one

Arctic Methane Emergency - press conference

youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4

Every fucking time a thread about climate change is posted, either follows two formulas. Either the thread dies after a few posts or it gets hundreds of responses that follow the same pattern:

1. The average thread openers, cracks at jokes, etc.
2. Depressive doomsday circlejerk.
3. Vegan comes in and starts flamewar.
4. Flamewar ends and doomsday circlejerk continues until thread dies.

Climate change is essentially the most important issue of our time, yet the rare cases when a thread about it is posted on here, you curl up into a fetal position and start BAAWWWWWing and then start memeing about the end of humanity and the world in an attempt to make some light about it rather than actually doing something.

You probably wouldn't have posted that in a thread about another topic.

If you're a hopeless pessimist posting here then fuck you. If you're contributing anything then it's hopelessness, inaction and a feeling of belittlement? Why the fuck are you on a radical left forum if all you're gonna do is post that there is no hope and we should just quit?

inb4 we're the last generation to remember a time when the world wasn't on fire.

Make existentialism popular and

the only solution is revolution, so what is there to talk about really?

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY OUT

FULL
AUTOMATED
LUXURY
POSADIST
COMMUNISM

> 2. A not so nice scenario: nuke a volcano which would spread dust in the upper atmosphere, thereby cooling off the earth enough to halt the release of methane hydrates. it is inherently dangerous to do so though. It could cause an ice age, the alternative is, of course, to fry.
Nuclear eco-terrorism. Grandiose.

And I thought this couldn't get any better after "Let's make non-Green opinions illegal" law that Green tried to pass a few months ago.

Of course I am. I even report myself. Go to the /marx/ if you want to trigger me some more.

independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-could-make-parts-of-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-uninhabitable-a7010811.html

hope you faggots are ready for the coming Nazi masturbation fantasy.

...

Fallout Tactics?

...