The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 4,051 to 4,075 of 4114

  1. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    It's going to depend on how fast the climate shifts. If the breadbaskets for wealthy nations collapse due to drought/floods/extreme heat then things will turn around very quickly. And the latest news is showing that climate sensitivity is likely much higher than previously thought, which means the carbon budget for 1.5C will either already be blown, or will be much smaller than previously thought. I'm betting on 2C before 2040.
    I agree that 2C is quite possible, even likely, by 2040. And if that's what happens in the next 20 years, it implies that by 2100 our grandchildren will be looking at 4C. And by 2200? Even if we stop adding GHG to the atmosphere, natural feedback loops could easily push that 4C to 6C by 2200.

    I think that modern civilisation can survive a 2C world, albeit with significant challenges. However, 4C or more is an entirely different story. It will cause the mass migration of billions of people, and starvation of billions more. Humanity will be reduced to a remnant.

  2. Post
    Bollocks, population is still growing to fast. There are too many people for the planet to support.

  3. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Bollocks, population is still growing to fast. There are too many people for the planet to support.
    Exactly and with most 3rd world countries wanting to give their populations the same level of society as us westerners, it will only compound the situation.

  4. Post
    better start liking that sludge they serve up to the people at the back of the Snowpiercer train unless you're in the 1%

  5. Post
    if you think the future is ****ed, you've been had by the interwebs.

  6. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    if you think the future is ****ed, you've been had by the interwebs.
    if you think the future isn't ****ed, you've been had by the interwebs.

  7. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    if you think the future isn't ****ed, you've been had by the interwebs.
    one of our statements could be true, but neither are really real and why let it mess with your mojo

  8. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    one of our statements could be true, but neither are really real and why let it mess with your mojo
    If this quick graphic does not give you pause for thought and to delve deeper into it, ...



    ... you are blindly ignoring the evidence, and not applying 'critical thinking' processes. And no, I am not looking at it with a confirmation bias either as I too was a sceptic for a very long time (see my earlier posts in this thread).

  9. Post
    wouldn't it be great if there was a machine that could tell us when, where, how we died so we could settle this

    then we wouldn't have to argue about it and instead we could spend the rest of our lives thinking about it.

    wouldn't it be great.

    and climate change is hardly the poster boy science for accurate predictions, Kilimanjaro could be another 50 years now and you're trying to tell me it's a wrap for civilization?

    I'll take my blind ignorant big dick the worlds a great place energy over these online armageddon long count calendar predictions because I might not know which one is true, but I know which one gets me laid.

  10. Post
    I wonder if rising sea levels are a consideration and effect the resale value of places like this:

    https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/r...ca858142f8-001

  11. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    I'll take my blind ignorant big dick the worlds a great place energy over these online armageddon long count calendar predictions because I might not know which one is true, but I know which one gets me laid.
    The problem is that predicting climate change effects along with climate change mitigations are all along the lines of a 'wicked problem'. A 'wicked problem' is one in which there is insufficient data to solve and will require multiple part solutions to work through by consultation and negotiation.

    A Wicked Problem: Controlling Global Climate Change.

    Meanwhile;
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Too late to stop what is coming down.

    Why?
    1: Western Nations too slow to implement the require changes in time; sheesh by 2050, way too late!
    2: Developing Nations too busy trying to lift their people out of poverty and other more immediate problems
    3: Changes are now observable on global scale: Tipping points? Extreme Weather, Faster melting, Ecological extinctions, etc.

    Meanwhile the world is distracted by stupid military brinkmanship, and celebrity/royalty/political scandals, etc.
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Here is what is likely coming over the next few decades;

    1: Population / Consumer / Business growth exceeding available and reducing resources causing;
    --- famines (ongoing in too many places now)
    --- conflicts (Syria is just the beginning)
    --- water shortages -- e.g. glaciers melting fast affecting billions of people
    --- continued poverty
    --- causing climate change
    2: Climate Change causing
    --- reduced resources affecting as above
    --- more frequent extreme weather events; droughts, heatwaves, storms, etc.
    --- ecological extinctions (6th mass extinction) -- e.g. fishing grounds disappearing
    --- rising sea levels
    --- mass migrations
    --- ... and probably more besides.
    3: Societal breakdown causing
    --- increasing poverty
    --- increasing anger towards migrants
    --- more crime, violence, etc.
    --- conflicts (internal, external, both at the same time)
    --- collapsing industries dependent on ecological resources
    --- economic collapse

    I could go on, but you get the picture.

  12. Post
    nzbleach wrote:
    I wonder if rising sea levels are a consideration and effect the resale value of places like this:

    https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/r...ca858142f8-001
    It will be in a few years if it’s not now, and it certainly is for some buyers now. For example, I was quite seriously looking at this place, but the m above sea level got me.
    https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/r...2178654460.htm

  13. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    one of our statements could be true, but neither are really real and why let it mess with your mojo
    me personally? it's not messing with anything though, I've accepted it. I was just pointing out that your view on the future is also heavily impacted by the internet and dismissing the very real upcoming dangers, from many different aspects of life, as internet garbage seems silly.

    I think everyone should be saving money, not moving to the more obvious potential at-risk areas and learning self sustaining skills but other than that's it just whatever. It is absolutely going to **** up the younger generations though, depression and suicide are going to keep rising.

  14. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    It will be in a few years if its not now, and it certainly is for some buyers now. For example, I was quite seriously looking at this place, but the m above sea level got me.
    https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/r...2178654460.htm
    Lot's of property in NZ is close to sea level, but you can still live permanently there.

    You just can't build on ground level floor platforms.

  15. Post
    and the topic should be 'how are we going to address these issues moving forward?' and not 'is or is this not going to happen?' because it's already obviously started...

  16. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    Lot's of property in NZ is close to sea level, but you can still live permanently there.

    You just can't build on ground level floor platforms.
    Yeah but that example I gave, and others like it, have a fair bit of land that is going to continually shrink. Your 4.8 hectares will shrink, storm surges will inundate the property, and your lovely beach property turns into a devaluing headache.

  17. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    Lot's of property in NZ is close to sea level, but you can still live permanently there.

    You just can't build on ground level floor platforms.
    Will the Hutt Valley become the Venice of the southern hemisphere?

  18. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    me personally? it's not messing with anything though, I've accepted it. I was just pointing out that your view on the future is also heavily impacted by the internet and dismissing the very real upcoming dangers, from many different aspects of life, as internet garbage seems silly.

    I think everyone should be saving money, not moving to the more obvious potential at-risk areas and learning self sustaining skills but other than that's it just whatever. It is absolutely going to **** up the younger generations though, depression and suicide are going to keep rising.
    There's a whole lotta influence and persuasion out there on the internet and it's only going to get worse;

    anything that is apocalyptic gets a red flag
    anything that causes you to have an emotional response gets a red flag
    anything outside of your control gets a red flag

    edit: I'll shut up I've had my 2c
    Last edited by Timmi; 25th January 2020 at 4:22 am.

  19. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Thanks for reformatting your post, your first paste was a dogs breakfast and pretty much unreadable. I’ll look into it some more if I get time. Your info if true, seems reasonable. I say if true, because it’s written from your group’s p.o.v. and they obviously present their side of the story.

    Do you know what will happen to the felled trees? Like, will they be used for furniture, housing etc?
    as an example, this tree will be removed from Mt Richmond

    Name:  treeMtRichmond.jpg
Views: 85
Size:  159.0 KB

    If our local bodies are doing this, what hope are our contributions to stemming CO2 effects.

    As for what they will do with the felled trees TMA are very silent.

  20. Post
    are they at a point of maturity where they will sequester less carbon than new trees tho

  21. Post
    I leave that to the scientists


  22. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I leave that to the scientists
    I'm sorry, I'd prefer to phrase this in a less snarky way, but why are you listening to cranks such as Lisa Prager over the scientists consulted?

  23. Post
    Gesellschaft wrote:
    I'm sorry, I'd prefer to phrase this in a less snarky way, but why are you listening to cranks such as Lisa Prager over the scientists consulted?
    Didnt know her.

    However, I have left the group now, as I feel I have done all I can on that issue. e.g. I obtained the full resource consent for the felling of the exotic trees by TMA and passed it on to them.

  24. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    There's a whole lotta influence and persuasion out there on the internet and it's only going to get worse;

    anything that is apocalyptic gets a red flag
    anything that causes you to have an emotional response gets a red flag
    anything outside of your control gets a red flag

    edit: I'll shut up I've had my 2c
    You will always have an emotional response to information that potentially conflicts with your worldview. You need to learn to deal with that or you will get stuck in echo chambers, refusing to listen to anything that triggers you. It's not too difficult, with Google, to verify information, especially with regards to climate science. If you can't find a scientific paper that supports the argument then it's probably a good idea to ignore it.

    On another note, this might be more up Vulcan's alley, as he was asking beforehand, but potholer laying down the facts and destroying conspiracy theories on the Aussie bushfires: