There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases

Nuclear war, for one. In a more naturalistic vein, asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruptions. People worried about climate change just refuse to look on the bright side.

Which is why I support the idea of setting up bases on the Moon and/or Mars.

Everything is accelerating, and nobody gives a fuck to do anything before it’s too late. I hate the argument that NASA doesn’t push its budget to prevent CC or even Space X. Because stopping CC is a global effort on a colossal scale. It’s not going to work until it’s too late. Might as well get off this rock.

Edit: Very fucking optimistic of you all

As if all that is not depressing on its own, there just a little less than half of the world that believe it’s a hoax. While they’re being cooked alive. And continue to vote for politicians that perpetuate the idea it’s a hoax.

i had my doubts. i was questioning the lack of coverage of this news.

regardless there is still good reason to be concerned.

I’m already telling people to get out of Florida*. I expect multiple Katrina-level events over the next 15 years. “Florida refugees” is going to become a common phrase.

Orlando might be more likely to survive than Miami or Tampa, but do you really want to be in the city surrounded by devastation?

We, as humans, seem to have lost the ability to plan more than 20 years into the future. Florida is still building in areas that are going to be crushed, and the only reaction is from insurance companies.

We’re not trying to prevent it. We’re not building any kind of defenses or contingency plans. We’re not encouraging people to move out. We’re not preventing people from moving in. In fact, we’re building new and encouraging people to move IN to Florida. It’s full on head in sand.

I’m literally living 6 meters below sea level. Please send help!

It’s nice by the coast though, I’d just put aquatic pilings under my house and have a ruggedised shelter built into it. Even if I live to a hundred and fifty with all the ice melted my land will still be under less water than the intercoastal platforms we’ve been routinely building since world war one.

We will need to drop some ice cubes in the ocean around that time.

Ah so we’re entering the scorched sky time line of the apocalypse.

After September 11th and the COVID lockdowns, scientists noted an increase in global surface temperature due to the absence of contrails. So yes, this is actually something we are already doing!

Sulfur dioxide however is an even more effective reflector of sunlight compared to water vapor. And don’t forget, water vapor is itself a very greenhouse agent that contributes toward planetary heating.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

Yup. Good luck out there.

I can’t quite figure out if it’s supposed to mean everyone within 35° of the equator latitude, or everyone outside it.

There’s probably a guy standing with his feet on the North Carolina and Georgia border, he’s above and below the 35th parallel but he’s not either above or below it…

Homer, everywhere’s gonna be a hellhole if you only focus on the pimps and the chuds.

What about the ultra rich that have built bunkers and have their security outfitted with locking, exploding collars to keep them in line?

I forget who, but some consultant said that they did a talk with a small group of the ultra wealthy that are doing this.

Edit: This is what I was referring to https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff

They have the money to potentially avoid repercussions long enough. This is especially true when collapse is relatively gradual

Every time, choice.

Cum in her mouth or ass or tits. Get a vasectomy.

But, bringing kids into this mess is practically immoral.

I mean, I get what you are saying, but if for a few generations only every 10th family would have only 1 child, GHG emissions would fall drastically. Having a kid basically more than doubles ‘your’ own carbon footprint.

Is this the only, the necessary, or the preferred way? Ofc not. Is it the biggest impact I can personally have on global warming? It is (voting, protesting, buying local & sustainable helps, but whatever you are doing the kids are doing it too).

It’s sad bcs there are so many ways we could solve this (at least achieve carbon neutrality, tho we need more than that now), but short-term profits of the current elite would suffer a little tiny bit so we can’t do it.

But additionally now we do need to prep to mitigate consequences and damage control (on top of green/ESG investments) … I wonder if all those profits will be used to finance this …

117.7 tonnes of Co2e per kid per parent per year in the USA (58.6 tonnes average when including all the poorer countries).Wynes et al. 2017

A conservative estimate is that we need to emit less than 2.1 tonnes in total per person per year to try to prevent catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change. Girod et al. 2013 (life expectancy/2050).

117.7 > 2.1

We need a fertility rate of about 0.01 for several decades.

Human overpopulation is not only the biggest contributor to push us into a climate-change tipping-points cascade, it’s also the root cause of almost all its other causes. It’s also the root cause of unsustainable habitat loss and pollution. It’s also the root cause of factory farming and industrial fishing, which causes more pain and suffering every year than all other atrocities ever committed combined.

As for corporations, they’re not burning the planet for shits and giggles - they’re psychopaths doing it because billions of people are choosing to buy their goods and services, which they want but don’t actually need.

You’ve never talked to a single socialist, anarchist, leftist, etc. about civilian firearm ownership before? It’s very commonly thought of as a necessary evil to prevent systemic oppression. Maybe don’t spend so much of your time talking to trumpers and neoconservatives?

To wit: there is no “right people” to want to shoot, and anyone who thinks there is probably has their own tribalism issue to work out. Community defense specifically does not have a target right up until the point someone else is an aggressor, and ends when violence is no longer needed. This is why you never saw “antifa burns down trump supporter’s house” or whatever in the news.

Yeah man, that Thomas Jefferson guy was a real unhinged fuckwad.

What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

I dunno, they seem fucking determined to get as much of my blood as possible, little fuckers.

ref. https://economicsociology.org/2014/10/07/yes-the-planet-got-destroyed-but-for-a-beautiful-moment-in-time-we-created-a-lot-of-value-for-shareholders/

@Gsicht @Sterile_Technique And “pragmatic” solutions to the climate crisis. Oh wait …!

and life will diversify again after we’re gone.

Here’s hoping; but that’s far from a safe assumption. The kicker about the changes we’re making to this planet is that a lot of them are positive feedback loops, so even if 100% of humans just got thanos-snapped out of existence RIGHT NOW, meaning a complete stop on fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, etc; the damage we’ve already caused will continue to get worse on its own with no further input from us.

So how far can those feedback loops go until they’re broken naturally? They might stabilize; they might just carry on until this planet is molten.

There will for sure be life after the last human dies, but given a few thousand more years, even the most resilient of critters could still be fucked because of us.

we did just waste a good few million years of evolution though (let’s say 65 million accounting for the rise of mammals). earth isn’t going to be habitable forever, from memory there’s less than a billion years left before the temp would increase with the expanding sun enough to make liquid water impossible. feels like we kind of shot earth in the foot a bit here

Did you do any of these things yourself?

There were periods in which we were nicer to the planet, but we’ve always been pretty horrible to each other. Even at the stage of civilization we’re at now - with all the advancements and comforts etc - we’re still going to war with each other just for the hell of it; murdering each other over shit like skin color or what we find sexually attractive; not only profiteering off the suffering of others, but actively manufacturing suffering to profiteer off.

We really are horrible.

You’ll start with millions of climate refugees

Millions? If only.

I’ve seen estimates which say at least a billion by 2050:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/climate-refugees-the-world-s-forgotten-victims/)

The problem is far worse than what any single billionaire can fix. Billions of dollars are being poured into renewable energy infrastructure. It’s just that while this is happening, we’re also emitting the same amount of CO2 as always. The only long-term resolution of this is de-growth.

Explosives and rifles aren’t expensive. There’s a reason the best funded military in the world consistently gets slowed up by insurgents.

While big funding would certainly help, this is more an issue of motivation (which expensive media campaigns would certainly help).

I’m not advocating for any of this, but as long as innocents weren’t caught up in it, I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over it either.

Bad news to a lot of those organisms though, the Extinction Level Event doesn’t stop at humans. I’m not sure what’s resilient enough to survive. Cockroaches maybe? Rats?

There is indeed an upper limit for global warming, because hot bodies lose more energy by radiating heat than colder ones. I think the equilibrium of energy gained by the sun and lost by heat radiation from the earth is at something like +5K in average global temperature. I doubt humanity would survive this though, civilization definitely won’t.

Homeopathic processes aim at curing by introducing a very low concentration of the disease, so effectively curing x by adding x. I think your example would make sense if it was oil or CO2 instead of a tree.

The humid areas will suffer and become uninhabitable first. As the wet bulb temps get higher than normal body temperature, and make it impossible for the natural human evaporative cooling system to work. - basically sweat won’t be enough to keep cool anymore. And youll essentially have to walk around in a bubble with a dehumidifier to survive.

The bulk of those companies are in the energy business and they respond to consumer demand. Chevron isn’t out there drilling, extracting, refining, and burning oil for no reason.

When the parties on offer are various flavours of neoliberalism, as in most capitalist countries these days, it doesn’t give you any options that will make a difference quick enough. They simply can’t do what needs to be done within that economic framework.

That said, vote for the least worst one. But the most significant things have to be done outside of that electoral framework, because it can’t resist the demands of short-term profit.

this is sadly where my head is at.