Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

We’ve got until 2030 to get climate change under control. After that it’s too late.

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/

There is no other issue that is more important than this one. 

I had figured that we had another 50-70 years to figure this out. Apparently not. 

Oh, we did.  When they started telling us about it.  

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through the article it frankly seems impossible to me. Even if we had an administration like the previous one that was at least nominally in favor of fighting climate change, how the hell would we ever achieve the limits the scientists are demanding? 

Im not a gloom and doom guy but I’m not seeing a good way out of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jonessed said:

We aren’t stopping it so best to start preparing.

Prepare for what? Most of Florida being part of the Atlantic Ocean by 2100? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

Prepare for what? Most of Florida being part of the Atlantic Ocean by 2100? 

Not seeing the downside.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, the rover said:

Not seeing the downside.

The population of Florida will be dispersing all over the country. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad they arbitrarily changed the arbitrary 2 degrees down to 1.5 degrees.  It makes everything seem much more urgent and makes scarier headlines.   It is all part of an effort to manipulate public opinion to act.  If CO2 is bad,  than less is better if course.  We would probably do better to start focusing on methane, but not as sexy to focus on cow farts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

The population of Florida will be dispersing all over the country. 

I only look to north at retirement spots. 

Vermont is high on my list but costs a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I am glad they arbitrarily changed the arbitrary 2 degrees down to 1.5 degrees.  It makes everything seem much more urgent and makes scarier headlines.   It is all part of an effort to manipulate public opinion to act.  If CO2 is bad,  than less is better if course.  We would probably do better to start focusing on methane, but not as sexy to focus on cow farts. 

I believe the original UN report had set the goal of 2 but that the 1.5 number was also in there at the urging of more vulnerable countries. They called out scenarios we would face at the two different temperature hikes.

Here’s an article that lays it out: LA Times

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Insomniac said:

Prepare for what? Most of Florida being part of the Atlantic Ocean by 2100? 

You that like it’s a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The General said:

I believe the original UN report had set the goal of 2 but that the 1.5 number was also in there at the urging of more vulnerable countries. They called out scenarios we would face at the two different temperature hikes.

Here’s an article that lays it out: LA Times

 

The point is, it is just an arbitrary goal.   If we don't meet it, it is not doomsday as the headline implies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The point is, it is just an arbitrary goal.   If we don't meet it, it is not doomsday as the headline implies.   

What does happen if temperatures rise by 2 degrees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of rightwing Christians don't care about this planet because they get to go to heaven anyway. I wish they'd hurry up and leave the planet to the good people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I am glad they arbitrarily changed the arbitrary 2 degrees down to 1.5 degrees.  It makes everything seem much more urgent and makes scarier headlines.   It is all part of an effort to manipulate public opinion to act.  If CO2 is bad,  than less is better if course.  We would probably do better to start focusing on methane, but not as sexy to focus on cow farts. 

Methane is a big issue, but I thought it was mostly related to methane trapped in the permafrost and under the ocean in the arctic.  The concern is that if the temps rise too much, the methane will release and accelerate the warming even more. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

 

Edited by abbottjamesr
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, timschochet said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/

There is no other issue that is more important than this one. 

I had figured that we had another 50-70 years to figure this out. Apparently not. 

Yep, I agree. Future generations are going to curse this time and wonder wtf we were doing.

i admit 12 years ago I was kinda :whatmeworry: and slightly skeptical but I now work in this realm and it’s no joke....we’re seeing the run up and then the switch will practically flip. Very scary stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The politicians barely talk about this issue. I noted two years ago, to my great frustration, that in the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it never came up! 

Should they? Would it make sense for Democrats to jump on this news, publicly, and say this is the #1 issue and we need to be elected to take action ASAP? or is that a losing strategy in this age of Trump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The politicians barely talk about this issue. I noted two years ago, to my great frustration, that in the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it never came up! 

Should they? Would it make sense for Democrats to jump on this news, publicly, and say this is the #1 issue and we need to be elected to take action ASAP? or is that a losing strategy in this age of Trump? 

Bernie talked about this quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

Reading through the article it frankly seems impossible to me. Even if we had an administration like the previous one that was at least nominally in favor of fighting climate change, how the hell would we ever achieve the limits the scientists are demanding? 

Im not a gloom and doom guy but I’m not seeing a good way out of this. 

It’s not the scientists Tim, it’s the science that is demanding it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

It’s not the scientists Tim, it’s the science that is demanding it.  

I agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no way we’re going to meet this goal. We’re not even trying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before. I hope everyone I know and love today is gone before Mother Nature ##### slaps the human race back to the stone age because it's a coming.

Edited by Mile High

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Nope most of them are dying out as well. Eat ‘em while you can. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The General said:

Nope most of them are dying out as well. Eat ‘em while you can. 

Well.. he did say all the fish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The politicians barely talk about this issue. I noted two years ago, to my great frustration, that in the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it never came up! 

Should they? Would it make sense for Democrats to jump on this news, publicly, and say this is the #1 issue and we need to be elected to take action ASAP? or is that a losing strategy in this age of Trump? 

Yes they should but we kind of had our moment here and the pro-business denial side won. It's so far down the list of something most politicians even want to bring up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current world seems to be a hard right wing swing so no way this is getting addressed. It's a grim looking time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I get a cliffs notes of that long and boring article?

what exactly am I worried about happening if we continue down the current path

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dedfin said:

Lots of rightwing Christians don't care about this planet because they get to go to heaven anyway. I wish they'd hurry up and leave the planet to the good people.

That's an interesting angle. 

I'm not sure how representative I am with other Christians but I lean more toward what Katharine Hayhoe talks about here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc4u1CvgB0w and her Tedx Talk on Climate Change here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrYNGs9oRM   She's an advocate for facilitating change in response to Climate Change. And a Christian Evangelical. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Can I get a cliffs notes of that long and boring article?

what exactly am I worried about happening if we continue down the current path

This is the good version:

Half as many people would suffer from lack of water.

There would be fewer deaths and illnesses from heat, smog and infectious diseases.

Seas would rise nearly 4 inches less.

Half as many plants and animals with backbones would lose the majority of their habitats.

There would be substantially fewer heat waves, downpours and droughts.

The West Antarctic ice sheet might not kick into irreversible melting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/

There is no other issue that is more important than this one. 

I had figured that we had another 50-70 years to figure this out. Apparently not. 

Quote

 

Most strikingly, the document says the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, which amount to more than 40 billion tons per year, would have to be on an extremely steep downward path by 2030 to either hold the world entirely below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or allow only a brief “overshoot” in temperatures. As of 2018, emissions appeared to be still rising, not yet showing the clear peak that would need to occur before any decline.

Overall reductions in emissions in the next decade would probably need to be more than 1 billion tons per year, larger than the current emissions of all but a few of the very largest emitting countries.

 

- This is practically impossible.

I'll just add that the Industrial Revolution began in the 1700's. This is the world we have lived in for all of modern history.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Can I get a cliffs notes of that long and boring article?

what exactly am I worried about happening if we continue down the current path

you sound like someone who is truly interested in learning more about the subject

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'll just add that the Industrial Revolution began in the 1700's. This is the world we have lived in for all of modern history.

One of the hopes inspired by and during the Industrial Revolution is that humanity, as a collective, will eventually engineer and innovate it's way out of it's most pressing collective problems. I don't see that stopping now, even if humanity takes some body blows over the coming decades and centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The politicians barely talk about this issue. I noted two years ago, to my great frustration, that in the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it never came up! 

Should they? Would it make sense for Democrats to jump on this news, publicly, and say this is the #1 issue and we need to be elected to take action ASAP? or is that a losing strategy in this age of Trump? 

Tim, you know I love you, but are you insane?  Climate change is absolutely a losing issue politically.  You’re asking people to make significant changes to the way we live in order to reap long term benefits that are shared with the rest of the planet.  You think independents and conservatives, who have proven over the last 3 decades that tax cuts Trump every other issue, are interested in the sacrifices necessary?  And on the left, you think the Sierra Club is willing to fully embrace nuclear? 

We’re ####ed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doug B said:

One of the hopes inspired by and during the Industrial Revolution is that humanity, as a collective, will eventually engineer and innovate it's way out of it's most pressing collective problems. I don't see that stopping now, even if humanity takes some body blows over the coming decades and centuries.

I agree, I was thinking just that. It's been about producing more, more, more, which has generated more and more pollution. But at the same time yes I agree technology is the answer to problems. But someone better get on it and come up with that magic technological solution.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no way we’re going to meet this goal. We’re not even trying. 

Oh I agree.  And anyone with kids should be concerned but many are too busy patting themselves on the back for Trump to even care about it.  That's the thing about brainwashing, nothing else matters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I agree, I was thinking just that. It's been about producing more, more, more, which has generated more and more pollution. But at the same time yes I agree technology is the answer to problems. But someone better get on it and come up with that magic technological solution.

Coal!  The wave of the future! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Can I get a cliffs notes of that long and boring article?

what exactly am I worried about happening if we continue down the current path

too warm for yoga pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Tim, you know I love you, but are you insane?  Climate change is absolutely a losing issue politically.  You’re asking people to make significant changes to the way we live in order to reap long term benefits that are shared with the rest of the planet.  You think independents and conservatives, who have proven over the last 3 decades that tax cuts Trump every other issue, are interested in the sacrifices necessary?  And on the left, you think the Sierra Club is willing to fully embrace nuclear? 

We’re ####ed. 

It's not a losing issue in Florida. Representative Curbelo proposed a carbon tax. 

This is the worst week of the year for king tides. Under a sunny sky, residents from St. Augustine to Ft. Lauderdale to Miami Beach will slosh through several inches of sea water. 

Scott is being hammered for his climate change denial and reduced environmental  regulations, which is bad political optics for red tide and blue-green algae. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

That's an interesting angle. 

I'm not sure how representative I am with other Christians but I lean more toward what Katharine Hayhoe talks about here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc4u1CvgB0w and her Tedx Talk on Climate Change here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrYNGs9oRM   She's an advocate for facilitating change in response to Climate Change. And a Christian Evangelical. 

Something like 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump so disbelief in  climate change among the group is likely to be somewhere around that level.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I agree, I was thinking just that. It's been about producing more, more, more, which has generated more and more pollution. But at the same time yes I agree technology is the answer to problems. But someone better get on it and come up with that magic technological solution.

It won't be one magical thing -- it will (and currently is, actually) a multi-factorial approach. Lowered vehicle emissions, less gasoline automobile driving in general, carbon scrubbing, biofuel, safer nuclear, greater efficiencies of renewable energies. Things, admittedly, might not not be moving fast enough but they are moving in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

That's an interesting angle. 

I'm not sure how representative I am with other Christians but I lean more toward what Katharine Hayhoe talks about here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc4u1CvgB0w and her Tedx Talk on Climate Change here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrYNGs9oRM   She's an advocate for facilitating change in response to Climate Change. And a Christian Evangelical. 

I've met her, she's amazing.  Her "Global Weirding" videos on social media are very good.  And yes one of her biggest goals is to take this issue to Evangelicals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

you sound like someone who is truly interested in learning more about the subject

That’s why I asked for cliffs notes.  That article did an awful job of explaining what the actual risks were, or if it did it had already lost my attention by the time it got to it

im not a climate change denier, but I wonder if the impacts are overstated.  Even if they aren’t, mankind will adapt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dan Lambskin said:

That’s why I asked for cliffs notes.  That article did an awful job of explaining what the actual risks were, or if it did it had already lost my attention by the time it got to it

im not a climate change denier, but I wonder if the impacts are overstated.  Even if they aren’t, mankind will adapt

depends what you're willing to accept.  if a billion people die as a result, is that "adapting"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Tim, you know I love you, but are you insane?  Climate change is absolutely a losing issue politically.  You’re asking people to make significant changes to the way we live in order to reap long term benefits that are shared with the rest of the planet.  You think independents and conservatives, who have proven over the last 3 decades that tax cuts Trump every other issue, are interested in the sacrifices necessary?  And on the left, you think the Sierra Club is willing to fully embrace nuclear? 

We’re ####ed. 

I wish they would. Nuclear plants are safe and effective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, joffer said:

depends what you're willing to accept.  if a billion people die as a result, is that "adapting"?

What are they dying from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.