Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(EurekAlert)   Historically, climate change has caused a lot of problems. Thankfully that's no longer an issue, right? RIGHT?   (eurekalert.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Roman Empire, Nile, Faiyum region, Cairo, discovery of climate change, Ancient Rome, Volcanic eruption, end of the third century CE  
•       •       •

553 clicks; posted to STEM » on 26 Jan 2021 at 10:50 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



20 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-01-26 11:46:43 AM  
No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.
 
2021-01-26 11:49:53 AM  
ISIS was a direct result of AGW drought.
 
2021-01-26 12:07:28 PM  
I agree. The climate has changed several times of the course of recorded human history and probably thousands of times over the course of millions of years. I also agree that it has caused problems during those times.
 
2021-01-26 12:16:10 PM  
I really wish we could just make the sahara vanish for a month or two....I would love to know whats actually buried under all that sand
 
2021-01-26 12:30:19 PM  

The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse: I agree. The climate has changed several times of the course of recorded human history and probably thousands of times over the course of millions of years. I also agree that it has caused problems during those times.


We haven't seen warming that is both as large and as rapid as what is projected to happen (over the next century or so) since the Eocene hyperthermals, about 50-60 million years ago ... and probably even faster than those.  Plus those hyperthermals were starting from a much warmer state with less ice, so very different impacts than we would see today.  So this is well outside the experience of the human species (or many other species) since it has existed, so it is hard to draw historical analogies of "this has happened, and caused problems, before".  Basically, it's "you ain't seen nothing yet".
 
2021-01-26 12:32:18 PM  
There are some positives. More months to golf. Negatives, less months with tons of snow.
 
2021-01-26 12:35:45 PM  

cryinoutloud: No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.


Hey i am doing my part.  For the system I design I am at around 100,000 tons of carbon reduced per year.
 
2021-01-26 12:40:41 PM  

Ambitwistor: The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse: I agree. The climate has changed several times of the course of recorded human history and probably thousands of times over the course of millions of years. I also agree that it has caused problems during those times.

We haven't seen warming that is both as large and as rapid as what is projected to happen (over the next century or so) since the Eocene hyperthermals, about 50-60 million years ago ... and probably even faster than those.  Plus those hyperthermals were starting from a much warmer state with less ice, so very different impacts than we would see today.  So this is well outside the experience of the human species (or many other species) since it has existed, so it is hard to draw historical analogies of "this has happened, and caused problems, before".  Basically, it's "you ain't seen nothing yet".


I agree. It is outside the human experience thus making it difficult to draw historical analogies.
 
2021-01-26 1:16:55 PM  

cryinoutloud: No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.


Well, you can't rush these things. And anyway how do you pay for it? We need to literally pull CO2 out of the air to make our goals. That's not profitable. Of course we could make it profitable, pay a carbon tax and then pay whoever comes up with the tech to pull the CO2 out of the air. But that would be raising taxes, the gravest sin of them all.
 
2021-01-26 2:19:33 PM  

Surrender your boo-tah: Well, you can't rush these things. And anyway how do you pay for it? We need to literally pull CO2 out of the air to make our goals. That's not profitable. Of course we could make it profitable, pay a carbon tax and then pay whoever comes up with the tech to pull the CO2 out of the air. But that would be raising taxes, the gravest sin of them all.


Oh honey, you don't know who I am, do you? I could write you a thesis right now.
And nobody is interested, because it takes actual work, and a gutting of the capitalist system. It's not a question of whether or not we do it, it's a question of when. And it's already too late.

So when you geniuses get tired of getting rich by killing off everything in the world, maybe you could, you know, think of the other 6 billion people you're trying to kill off with your best capitalistic pipe dreams. And then actually DO something about it.

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Hey i am doing my part.  For the system I design I am at around 100,000 tons of carbon reduced per year.


How much money were you paid for it? Then it's going to be used for a profit, and not to actually improve anything. The rich farks will buy whatever it is, then go buy another house, they're saving so much energy!

And dont' tell me that's not true. I've been watching this shiat my whole life. And the only bennies of technology go to those who don't need it and already have way more than their share.  The only way to improve on this is to remove the profit motive.

Your move.
 
2021-01-26 3:18:54 PM  

Ambitwistor: We haven't seen warming that is both as large and as rapid as what is projected to happen (over the next century or so) since the Eocene hyperthermals, about 50-60 million years ago ... and probably even faster than those.


...except those "projections" are quietly being downgraded.

People started to notice that the previous predictions - the ones that cover 1990 to 2020 - were off by a rather large amount. Warming is about one-third of what they were claiming it would be. They try to hedge their bets by pointing to some studies that predicted about this much - but those weren't the studies they were touting back in the 90s.

It's like that whole "global warming induced sea level rise" silliness. There hasn't been an appreciable change in sea level rise rate since the middle of the 19th century. At the current rate, it's going to be less than a foot by 2100. This is as compared to the ten feet or more some AGW fantasists were claiming it would be by now.
 
2021-01-26 3:37:41 PM  

cryinoutloud:

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Hey i am doing my part.  For the system I design I am at around 100,000 tons of carbon reduced per year.

How much money were you paid for it? Then it's going to be used for a profit, and not to actually improve anything. The rich farks will buy whatever it is, then go buy another house, they're saving so much energy!

And dont' tell me that's not true. I've been watching this shiat my whole life. And the only bennies of technology go to those who don't need it and already have way more than their share.  The only way to improve on this is to remove the profit motive.

Your move.


I get paid quite a bit for it.  It's for industrial and institutional processes.  What ours does that no one else's can is actually improve operational efficiency that comes with a greenhouse gas offset.  So they save money and greatly reduce the carbon footprint of their plant.

If this offends your delicate sensibilities then, well I don't give a crap.  I have still done orders of magnitudes more than you.  Feel free throwing out insults on the internet next time just pick your target better.
 
2021-01-26 4:14:01 PM  

cirby: Ambitwistor: We haven't seen warming that is both as large and as rapid as what is projected to happen (over the next century or so) since the Eocene hyperthermals, about 50-60 million years ago ... and probably even faster than those.

...except those "projections" are quietly being downgraded.

People started to notice that the previous predictions - the ones that cover 1990 to 2020 - were off by a rather large amount. Warming is about one-third of what they were claiming it would be. They try to hedge their bets by pointing to some studies that predicted about this much - but those weren't the studies they were touting back in the 90s.

It's like that whole "global warming induced sea level rise" silliness. There hasn't been an appreciable change in sea level rise rate since the middle of the 19th century. At the current rate, it's going to be less than a foot by 2100. This is as compared to the ten feet or more some AGW fantasists were claiming it would be by now.


Your maga hat must be loose. better tighten it with a wrench a few more turns to keep the stupid locked up inside your head
 
2021-01-26 5:00:35 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-27 3:59:16 AM  

cryinoutloud: No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.


Communications and data storage. Many, many people will be displaced and will die, but unlike the Bronze Age collapse, for example, the survivors will have uninterrupted access to everything that was known before.
 
2021-01-27 6:08:56 AM  

KB202: cryinoutloud: No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.

Communications and data storage. Many, many people will be displaced and will die, but unlike the Bronze Age collapse, for example, the survivors will have uninterrupted access to everything that was known before.


unless a solar flare destroys the entire worlds power grid
 
2021-01-27 7:48:36 AM  

KB202: cryinoutloud: No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.

Communications and data storage. Many, many people will be displaced and will die, but unlike the Bronze Age collapse, for example, the survivors will have uninterrupted access to everything that was known before.


if anything data storage is part of the problem.  The energy consumption and thermal load of a decent sized data center is high.
 
2021-01-27 8:01:48 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: KB202: cryinoutloud: No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.

Communications and data storage. Many, many people will be displaced and will die, but unlike the Bronze Age collapse, for example, the survivors will have uninterrupted access to everything that was known before.

if anything data storage is part of the problem.  The energy consumption and thermal load of a decent sized data center is high.


For now. It will get smaller as population drops and as researchers and AI systems think up better solutions.
 
2021-01-27 8:03:11 AM  

lifeslammer: KB202: cryinoutloud: No, because we have technology.

I've been waiting my whole life for some brilliant man explain to me which technology is going to take care of it, and when are we going to start?

I'm still waiting.

Communications and data storage. Many, many people will be displaced and will die, but unlike the Bronze Age collapse, for example, the survivors will have uninterrupted access to everything that was known before.

unless a solar flare destroys the entire worlds power grid


We just have to get off the planet before that happens.

But if that happens, we won't have to worry about whether global warming can be overcome by tech.
 
2021-01-27 10:30:24 AM  

lifeslammer: cirby: Ambitwistor: We haven't seen warming that is both as large and as rapid as what is projected to happen (over the next century or so) since the Eocene hyperthermals, about 50-60 million years ago ... and probably even faster than those.

...except those "projections" are quietly being downgraded.

People started to notice that the previous predictions - the ones that cover 1990 to 2020 - were off by a rather large amount. Warming is about one-third of what they were claiming it would be. They try to hedge their bets by pointing to some studies that predicted about this much - but those weren't the studies they were touting back in the 90s.

It's like that whole "global warming induced sea level rise" silliness. There hasn't been an appreciable change in sea level rise rate since the middle of the 19th century. At the current rate, it's going to be less than a foot by 2100. This is as compared to the ten feet or more some AGW fantasists were claiming it would be by now.

Your maga hat must be loose. better tighten it with a wrench a few more turns to keep the stupid locked up inside your head


FYI - not everyone who has doubts about AGW are Trump voters. Some of us even voted for Biden. Nothing wrong with pointing some flaws in the logic.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.