By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Are these and other statistically massive divergences from 'normal' historical data sets all linked to a cascading collapse of stable-ish Earth subsystems - linked in ways we don't fully understand which are pushing and in some cases exceeding worst case predictions? Is it really happening this quickly?
Do we just ignore it, because there's no hope? Or do we actually do something to help ourselves at last?
Do we keep waiting for governments to do something?
If we're pretending that it's not happening, do we keep pretending because we don't want to face it?
If we kind of know something is badly wrong, but don't really want to try to understand it, do we actually try being a little bit brave and make an effort to learn a little, in the hope that we can maybe make a difference?
If we are knowingly, selfishly pursuing our personal quests for material (or even just theoretical financial) gain, do we actually allow our consciences to talk to us?
We know nothing for certain. No matter how bad the situation looks there is hope that the juggernaut of our over-heating of our home can be slowed a little and that the impact of the crash can be reduced.
Totally agree, however governments and big businesses are too focused on the bottom line and recklessly achieve things like GDP growth without thinking of the consequences.
I work in SEA and recently returned to Europe for a holiday. To be honest, i was very impressed on the whole with a lot of the eco-initiatives i saw and the use of electronic public transport options etc...It really compounded just how far behind the circle the rest of the world is in regards to this, as bad as that sounds.
0
Is this the end game? on 09:18 - Jul 22 with 3492 views
Khan doing something about climate change enabled Tories to hang on in Uxbridge.
Many of the changes we need to make are going to be very unpopular. A ban on wood burners in heavily populated areas; ban on BBQs etc would cost votes but would help the climate.
There are probably more votes to lose, than to be gained, from climate control measures.
Is this the end game? on 09:18 - Jul 22 by Pinewoodblue
Khan doing something about climate change enabled Tories to hang on in Uxbridge.
Many of the changes we need to make are going to be very unpopular. A ban on wood burners in heavily populated areas; ban on BBQs etc would cost votes but would help the climate.
There are probably more votes to lose, than to be gained, from climate control measures.
Hard to disagree with that, but at the same time it is depressing as hell isn't it? We can all see with our own eyes that the climate is changing, here and around the world, but sod the idea of any of us being mildly inconvenienced to fix it.
I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun.
I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
Is this the end game? on 09:18 - Jul 22 by Pinewoodblue
Khan doing something about climate change enabled Tories to hang on in Uxbridge.
Many of the changes we need to make are going to be very unpopular. A ban on wood burners in heavily populated areas; ban on BBQs etc would cost votes but would help the climate.
There are probably more votes to lose, than to be gained, from climate control measures.
Wood burners and BBQs are trivialities (but absolutely worthy of discussion, so long as they're not distractions).
We are facing a systematic collapse of the Earth, in the considered opinion of the best-informed people we have, and we have to make step changes of several orders of magnitude more significance than the sort of pissy little efforts we've made so far, if we want (essentially) to survive.
The cancerous 'growth' mantra has to be killed off, and we have to apply vast pressure on governments from beneath. Now.
Personally, I'm not sure that talk of cascades and collapses is all that useful. It reinforces the idea that it's already too late and perhaps not worth making an effort to ameliorate the problems. Moreover, there's a long way to go before relatively minor problems (it being a bit too hot in some formerly temperate zones) become the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for life as we know it.
I think we need to be doing something about it. Governments, in financial and lobbying hock to old industrial and mining interests, or just seeking the quickest and simplest routes to national (sometimes personal) enrichment, are not going to pay much more than lip-service to it (tho they are better than they used to be). By "we" I mean entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, social leaders, as well as the ordinary populace changing their habits, consumption patterns and who they vote into power. That is where technological and social change has usually originated from anyway*.
Those are the two things we're going to need. New technologies to replace the damaging ones we're already using. They have to be both efficient and cost effective, or adoption will be harder to push. Likewise with social changes, which can't cost too much or reduce standards of living too far, otherwise people will have no incentive to go for them. Or simply can't afford to (especially in poorer parts of the world).
Probably stronger even than social changes - cultural ones. I know globalism has become a dirty word, due to the offshoring of jobs from the old industrial West, but we are going to have to think in global terms. Particularly when it comes to population movement and financial support. Global problems need global solutions. It's all very well protecting my country against all others, but climate change is going to get you all in the end. Plus economic (i.e. consumerist) pressure needs to be put onto countries who are inflicting the most damage - but with a carrot of assistance in making changes to go with the stick.
* The space race being perhaps the most notable exception. But even that was backed by massive popular interest globally.
We have to act now — or certainly do more. Right across the international, national, corporate, local and personal levels.
On a personal level that’s not just recycling, composting and using fewer plastic bags for the weekly shop but a shift in our values where we get out of the growth/profit rut and the mantra of individual opportunity being more important than anything else.
In any case, the world and humankind are much greater and more interesting than the pretty narrow economic value we’ve put on both. And it certainly doesn’t justify potentially billions of people dying and quadrillions of other organisms with millions of species even becoming extinct. There is nothing about our man-made world that is worth that or even worth risking it.
Unlike almost any previous generation, we’re also blessed with science and free information in abundance. We don’t have any excuses if we fail to understand and fail to make a real effort.
Where does this effort come from when almost all people have their own personal stuff, money and security to worry about? It’ll come from increasing protests at the grassroots level and REAL leadership at the top. The latter is what’s really missing and allowing all of us to effectively sit on our hands.
Pronouns: He/Him
1
Is this the end game? on 10:46 - Jul 22 with 3230 views
Is this the end game? on 09:33 - Jul 22 by NthQldITFC
Wood burners and BBQs are trivialities (but absolutely worthy of discussion, so long as they're not distractions).
We are facing a systematic collapse of the Earth, in the considered opinion of the best-informed people we have, and we have to make step changes of several orders of magnitude more significance than the sort of pissy little efforts we've made so far, if we want (essentially) to survive.
The cancerous 'growth' mantra has to be killed off, and we have to apply vast pressure on governments from beneath. Now.
I missed this before I replied but we’re saying the same thing.
I do think that the void in leadership at the top is the biggest problem. But 99 times out of 100 you don’t get to be in a leadership role (political or corporate) unless you essentially agree with the way things are and are not looking to change that.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
Is this the end game? on 11:35 - Jul 22 with 3153 views
To me the most frightening thing is water. I haven't looked into this so might be talking nonsense but to me warmer weather suggests we will need a lot more water.
A good first step would be to actively encourage plant based diets. Most plant based foods require much less water and less animal products would also help the environment. There should be a tax on animal products that is used to pay farmers more for meat and dairy to offset the decreased production, to help them transition away from animal products and to subsidise whole plant foods.
We should also be investing massively in desalination plants as well. Yes it's expensive but does it even matter at this point? The government wastes a fortune and securing your future water security is quite a big deal.
Every new build should come with solar panels and designed to store rainwater.
Time to stick a large tax on flights as well. Too many people talk a good game and then take 5-6 flights a year.
Oh and we should also be stockpiling silver for future solar panels.
Sorry, ignore all of the above. Those ideas might make the stock market go down a few percent. That would be the real tragedy.
To me the most frightening thing is water. I haven't looked into this so might be talking nonsense but to me warmer weather suggests we will need a lot more water.
A good first step would be to actively encourage plant based diets. Most plant based foods require much less water and less animal products would also help the environment. There should be a tax on animal products that is used to pay farmers more for meat and dairy to offset the decreased production, to help them transition away from animal products and to subsidise whole plant foods.
We should also be investing massively in desalination plants as well. Yes it's expensive but does it even matter at this point? The government wastes a fortune and securing your future water security is quite a big deal.
Every new build should come with solar panels and designed to store rainwater.
Time to stick a large tax on flights as well. Too many people talk a good game and then take 5-6 flights a year.
Oh and we should also be stockpiling silver for future solar panels.
Sorry, ignore all of the above. Those ideas might make the stock market go down a few percent. That would be the real tragedy.
[Post edited 22 Jul 2023 13:54]
Hell, we've got plenty of roofs already. Why aren't we sticking solar panels on all houses?
As your last line suggests, the real problem is we're all going to have to pay for these things eventually but no political party wants to be the one to have the difficult conversation with voters.
There have been some rumours that Labour has been spooked by one by-election enough to water down their environmental policies even further. This is where we are as a species.
The human race will survive whatever happens in some form, but they'll look back on this period of history and wonder wtf we were all thinking.
Is this the end game? on 09:48 - Jul 22 by Guthrum
Personally, I'm not sure that talk of cascades and collapses is all that useful. It reinforces the idea that it's already too late and perhaps not worth making an effort to ameliorate the problems. Moreover, there's a long way to go before relatively minor problems (it being a bit too hot in some formerly temperate zones) become the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for life as we know it.
I think we need to be doing something about it. Governments, in financial and lobbying hock to old industrial and mining interests, or just seeking the quickest and simplest routes to national (sometimes personal) enrichment, are not going to pay much more than lip-service to it (tho they are better than they used to be). By "we" I mean entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, social leaders, as well as the ordinary populace changing their habits, consumption patterns and who they vote into power. That is where technological and social change has usually originated from anyway*.
Those are the two things we're going to need. New technologies to replace the damaging ones we're already using. They have to be both efficient and cost effective, or adoption will be harder to push. Likewise with social changes, which can't cost too much or reduce standards of living too far, otherwise people will have no incentive to go for them. Or simply can't afford to (especially in poorer parts of the world).
Probably stronger even than social changes - cultural ones. I know globalism has become a dirty word, due to the offshoring of jobs from the old industrial West, but we are going to have to think in global terms. Particularly when it comes to population movement and financial support. Global problems need global solutions. It's all very well protecting my country against all others, but climate change is going to get you all in the end. Plus economic (i.e. consumerist) pressure needs to be put onto countries who are inflicting the most damage - but with a carrot of assistance in making changes to go with the stick.
* The space race being perhaps the most notable exception. But even that was backed by massive popular interest globally.
Your first paragraph my be true in popular discourse as it is often discussed in a non-scientific way, however, to suggest it isn't a legitimate scientific endeavour is nonsense. Understanding qualitatively the possible cascading impacts on our civilisation was what a bunch of us in this field discussed recently with Luke Kemp, the lead author of the 'climate endgame' paper.
That fact the we don't understand these processes makes your claim that, "...there's a long way to go" unquantifiable. It is great to see people taking the time to attempt to understand these problems, but we need to be careful with the language. Humans lived long before civilisation and could survive after civilisation collapses, it seems uninhabitable and collapse get used interchangeably when they are different things.
A great point a fellow physicist said to me recently was, why are humans in such a rush to build a bigger and bigger system? Maybe we were predetermined to collapse, it could even be a reason why we have not discovered life anywhere else. All the talk of free will, COP's, IPCC, democracy, technology, and yet, nothing has even dented our desire to test those physical thresholds that could lead to the demise of our civilisation. To suggest we aren't trying is a complete nonsense, some of us have spent our entire working lives on this problem. It seems less is something our civilisation can't do until it becomes inevitable.
5
Is this the end game? on 13:23 - Jul 22 with 2902 views
Is this the end game? on 09:48 - Jul 22 by Guthrum
Personally, I'm not sure that talk of cascades and collapses is all that useful. It reinforces the idea that it's already too late and perhaps not worth making an effort to ameliorate the problems. Moreover, there's a long way to go before relatively minor problems (it being a bit too hot in some formerly temperate zones) become the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for life as we know it.
I think we need to be doing something about it. Governments, in financial and lobbying hock to old industrial and mining interests, or just seeking the quickest and simplest routes to national (sometimes personal) enrichment, are not going to pay much more than lip-service to it (tho they are better than they used to be). By "we" I mean entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, social leaders, as well as the ordinary populace changing their habits, consumption patterns and who they vote into power. That is where technological and social change has usually originated from anyway*.
Those are the two things we're going to need. New technologies to replace the damaging ones we're already using. They have to be both efficient and cost effective, or adoption will be harder to push. Likewise with social changes, which can't cost too much or reduce standards of living too far, otherwise people will have no incentive to go for them. Or simply can't afford to (especially in poorer parts of the world).
Probably stronger even than social changes - cultural ones. I know globalism has become a dirty word, due to the offshoring of jobs from the old industrial West, but we are going to have to think in global terms. Particularly when it comes to population movement and financial support. Global problems need global solutions. It's all very well protecting my country against all others, but climate change is going to get you all in the end. Plus economic (i.e. consumerist) pressure needs to be put onto countries who are inflicting the most damage - but with a carrot of assistance in making changes to go with the stick.
* The space race being perhaps the most notable exception. But even that was backed by massive popular interest globally.
I agree completely with your second paragraph, but I'd strongly take issue with your first. The risk of some of the extraordinary regional events we are seeing right now triggering off other known mechanisms (e.g. startlingly high sea temperatures reaching ocean bottoms and releasing methane trapped in clathrates) are very real and potentially very imminent, from what I've read.
Persuasive scientific arguments have done effectively nothing to trigger us into saving ourselves - perhaps we need outright fear now? We need to be on a war footing, bravely facing the reality and pulling together to make what difference we can.
More importantly, I find the last sentence of that paragraph very dangerous - it sounds very binary, and while I know that you understand this well, many people will think that it's either planet uninhabitable or all fine, and that as long as we do something or come up with a putative new technology before a certain date it will be alright.
We know that there's so much momentum in the system that we have to start seriously acting right now, just to have a chance.
Everything has to change, and that change has to start with a realisation inside each individual that we have to give up many of the luxuries we love and consider ours by right. We all know it deep down, the evidence is being served up to us all the time.
Is this the end game? on 12:40 - Jul 22 by DanTheMan
Hell, we've got plenty of roofs already. Why aren't we sticking solar panels on all houses?
As your last line suggests, the real problem is we're all going to have to pay for these things eventually but no political party wants to be the one to have the difficult conversation with voters.
There have been some rumours that Labour has been spooked by one by-election enough to water down their environmental policies even further. This is where we are as a species.
The human race will survive whatever happens in some form, but they'll look back on this period of history and wonder wtf we were all thinking.
Not just houses, supermarkets, warehouses, retail parks should all have solar arrays installed now. Even small wind turbines.
Screw the 'I don't want to have to look at those ghastly things, they spoil the view' brigade. There won't be a view to look at in a few decades time, you dumbasssss!
The loss of Antarctic sea ice looks particularly alarming.
It does that. I've not been reading much on the subject lately, for the obvious reasons, but I found that startling. The divergence from the 'normal' bands on those charts should make everyone sit up and take notice. And then you realise that the timescales on those graphs mean that you're already looking at an elevated normal before you see the 2023 lines.
Is this the end game? on 10:58 - Jul 22 by Darth_Koont
I missed this before I replied but we’re saying the same thing.
I do think that the void in leadership at the top is the biggest problem. But 99 times out of 100 you don’t get to be in a leadership role (political or corporate) unless you essentially agree with the way things are and are not looking to change that.
Forget waiting for leaders to do something; change the way you live, the way you interact with others and your economic choices. If enough people do this then the people who want to be leaders will soon change their tune and start chasing our votes.
To me the most frightening thing is water. I haven't looked into this so might be talking nonsense but to me warmer weather suggests we will need a lot more water.
A good first step would be to actively encourage plant based diets. Most plant based foods require much less water and less animal products would also help the environment. There should be a tax on animal products that is used to pay farmers more for meat and dairy to offset the decreased production, to help them transition away from animal products and to subsidise whole plant foods.
We should also be investing massively in desalination plants as well. Yes it's expensive but does it even matter at this point? The government wastes a fortune and securing your future water security is quite a big deal.
Every new build should come with solar panels and designed to store rainwater.
Time to stick a large tax on flights as well. Too many people talk a good game and then take 5-6 flights a year.
Oh and we should also be stockpiling silver for future solar panels.
Sorry, ignore all of the above. Those ideas might make the stock market go down a few percent. That would be the real tragedy.
[Post edited 22 Jul 2023 13:54]
The warnings are there. Here's one that I saw on TV the other day. If the gammon think immigration is bad now, wait until you see what's going to happen when large tracts of Europe become uninhabiatable.
On a slight tangent, I was in China recently and whilst there is fossil consumption everywhere, the uptake of electric powered vehicles (cars and bikes/ scooters) is astonishing.
It's 106 miles to Portman Road, we've got a full tank of gas, half a round of Port Salut, it's dark... and we're wearing blue tinted sunglasses.
Is this the end game? on 12:44 - Jul 22 by CoachRob
Your first paragraph my be true in popular discourse as it is often discussed in a non-scientific way, however, to suggest it isn't a legitimate scientific endeavour is nonsense. Understanding qualitatively the possible cascading impacts on our civilisation was what a bunch of us in this field discussed recently with Luke Kemp, the lead author of the 'climate endgame' paper.
That fact the we don't understand these processes makes your claim that, "...there's a long way to go" unquantifiable. It is great to see people taking the time to attempt to understand these problems, but we need to be careful with the language. Humans lived long before civilisation and could survive after civilisation collapses, it seems uninhabitable and collapse get used interchangeably when they are different things.
A great point a fellow physicist said to me recently was, why are humans in such a rush to build a bigger and bigger system? Maybe we were predetermined to collapse, it could even be a reason why we have not discovered life anywhere else. All the talk of free will, COP's, IPCC, democracy, technology, and yet, nothing has even dented our desire to test those physical thresholds that could lead to the demise of our civilisation. To suggest we aren't trying is a complete nonsense, some of us have spent our entire working lives on this problem. It seems less is something our civilisation can't do until it becomes inevitable.
My post was aimed at popular discourse/media, not scientific enquiry. More to counter a narrative of "It's already too late", which can tip over into fatalism.
Certainly didn't mean to belittle the work you and others are doing.
Indeed the rest of my post was an appeal for more research, people and funds to be put into the science, technology and social engineering needed to understand and mitigate the processes of climate change.
I don't like Mathusian interpretations of human civilisation, but neither am I a fan of the "endless growth" model. It's not even logical in a system of finite resources.
Is this the end game? on 13:23 - Jul 22 by NthQldITFC
I agree completely with your second paragraph, but I'd strongly take issue with your first. The risk of some of the extraordinary regional events we are seeing right now triggering off other known mechanisms (e.g. startlingly high sea temperatures reaching ocean bottoms and releasing methane trapped in clathrates) are very real and potentially very imminent, from what I've read.
Persuasive scientific arguments have done effectively nothing to trigger us into saving ourselves - perhaps we need outright fear now? We need to be on a war footing, bravely facing the reality and pulling together to make what difference we can.
More importantly, I find the last sentence of that paragraph very dangerous - it sounds very binary, and while I know that you understand this well, many people will think that it's either planet uninhabitable or all fine, and that as long as we do something or come up with a putative new technology before a certain date it will be alright.
We know that there's so much momentum in the system that we have to start seriously acting right now, just to have a chance.
Everything has to change, and that change has to start with a realisation inside each individual that we have to give up many of the luxuries we love and consider ours by right. We all know it deep down, the evidence is being served up to us all the time.
As I posted below, was more a concern over fatalism than minimising the urgency of the situation. Don't think I worded it very well.
I think it's going to be really difficult to get people onto a 'war footing' (which is an appropriate phrase), who are not under direct threat. Silent Spring was 60 years ago and it's only in the last decade or two the issue is getting real traction. People don't like making sacrifices, even small ones (vis the grumbles over recycling, or rage at ULEZ/LTZs. Tho they might swap their car for an electric one if it's nice and works well, or switch off electrical equipment if it saves on their bills.
Is this the end game? on 14:57 - Jul 22 by Guthrum
As I posted below, was more a concern over fatalism than minimising the urgency of the situation. Don't think I worded it very well.
I think it's going to be really difficult to get people onto a 'war footing' (which is an appropriate phrase), who are not under direct threat. Silent Spring was 60 years ago and it's only in the last decade or two the issue is getting real traction. People don't like making sacrifices, even small ones (vis the grumbles over recycling, or rage at ULEZ/LTZs. Tho they might swap their car for an electric one if it's nice and works well, or switch off electrical equipment if it saves on their bills.
As someone posted the other day, we're trying to persuade the masses (very much too gently in my opinion) with science, which isn't working. There's plenty of deeply engrained fatalism as a response to that approach - "we can't do anything because China."
We need to get everybody in the world to realise that we are all under direct threat right now or at least in a timescale potentially measured in years not decades with our fragile, high-geared food production systems for example.
I don't know, but I rather suspect that fatalism might actually evaporate a bit with the growing realisation of how severe the threats are, how short the timescales potentially are, and conversely how long it will take for the Earth to absorb the effects of that damage which we have already done.
We're still sleeping in a mindset where we think about what people will accept or how to nudge things along a bit. Nobody knows for sure, but there's a strong possibility that we don't have time for those niceties, and even if we have, surely it's better to play it safe or go a little early.
Is this the end game? on 15:28 - Jul 22 by NthQldITFC
As someone posted the other day, we're trying to persuade the masses (very much too gently in my opinion) with science, which isn't working. There's plenty of deeply engrained fatalism as a response to that approach - "we can't do anything because China."
We need to get everybody in the world to realise that we are all under direct threat right now or at least in a timescale potentially measured in years not decades with our fragile, high-geared food production systems for example.
I don't know, but I rather suspect that fatalism might actually evaporate a bit with the growing realisation of how severe the threats are, how short the timescales potentially are, and conversely how long it will take for the Earth to absorb the effects of that damage which we have already done.
We're still sleeping in a mindset where we think about what people will accept or how to nudge things along a bit. Nobody knows for sure, but there's a strong possibility that we don't have time for those niceties, and even if we have, surely it's better to play it safe or go a little early.
the problem is that all too often there is no direct effect from any of our actions. You light a BBQ and the neighbours house blows up might cause you to think Burn wood in your burner and 'nothing happens, ooit seems.
I fear that things are going to have to get a lot worse (and they will) before some take it seriously.
The minor adjustments that can be made with no consequent harm seem all too difficult for some. In fact the idiot mantra of "it is all a giant conspiracy" by some authiritarian big brother seems to be their watchword.
IUt is not that those small actions would suddenly change things, but they would signify a change in mindset. A recognition that climate change is happening, and so maybe we should welcome necessary change as a way to begin to reduce the harm we are causing.
A start might be to close off the diarrhoea of lies that squirt out of kGB Vews and cranks like wee Jimmy McCranky (Neil Oliver) who claim that Climate change is just a distraction by the establishment* to distract us from something, he knows not. Farage the same, and Johnson who not long back derided wind power and advocated shale gas production.
In 1946 it was known what to do with William Joyce. Perhaps nothing so drastic now, but the internment of Mosely and others should point towards whats needed.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
