Since music is math, is global warming terrifying new music?

Ok ok, promise we won't set the ocean on fire again

  On 8/9/2021 at 7:08 PM, thefxbip said:

Wild fkin times to be alive.

  On 8/9/2021 at 5:01 PM, ignatius said:

being a young person i think it's part of his way of not descending into hopelessness.

I think for me as an older person it also doesn't seem as hopeless as maybe to some because I've lived through similar or worse existential threat, the Cold War. Back in the 80s it was constantly in the news, TV and movies. Everyone was told that a nuclear war was going to break out at anytime and the most of humanity would be wiped out within hours and the few survivors would inherit a radioactive planet going through a nuclear winter. Then the threat significantly lowered after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Compared to that a slowly happening climate change doesn't sound so apocalyptic. The ecological catastrophe does seem more inevitable at this point though but a lot of people really believed that the nuclear showdown was inevitable also. So idk.

  On 8/9/2021 at 8:29 PM, zkom said:

I think for me as an older person it also doesn't seem as hopeless as maybe to some because I've lived through similar or worse existential threat, the Cold War. Back in the 80s it was constantly in the news, TV and movies. Everyone was told that a nuclear war was going to break out at anytime and the most of humanity would be wiped out within hours and the few survivors would inherit a radioactive planet going through a nuclear winter. Then the threat significantly lowered after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Compared to that a slowly happening climate change doesn't sound so apocalyptic. The ecological catastrophe does seem more inevitable at this point though but a lot of people really believed that the nuclear showdown was inevitable also. So idk.

Expand  

i'm almost 50 so lived through the same.  this seems worse because i'm older and it's more real. nuclear war seemed like a thing that was avoidable. not inevitable like climate collapse. 

ymmv of course but after i saw Red Dawn (first pg-13 movie ever) i knew that the youth of america would kill the communist invaders and chase them from our land so was less worried. 

i think the early parts of the cold war with drunk russian leaders and the US 'mad man strategy' as well as russian cuba missile crisis etc were probably more scary. by the 80s it seems like the cold war was stable and i was also only a teenager so i mostly thought about BMX bikes and boobies and when to yield to pier pressure to smoke weed. 

MAD.

  On 8/9/2021 at 8:48 PM, dcom said:

MAD.

yeah.. also, the mad man strategy which is what Nixon used. implying he was fucking crazy and drunk and the B52 bombers were always flying and during times of higher threat levels or whatever used as leverage as they would be told to fly closer to legal boundaries or whatever.. literally in the air 24 hours a day for months for weeks/months and stuff like that. 

Ok so is there any reliable info on this besides the massively politicized IPCC? Their models are pointless, it's all a bunch of ridiculously chaotic variables that just complicate exponentially with each year modeled. They have themselves admitted to skewing the figures towards the extreme. In the 80's NASA "predicted" that parts of NY would be underwater by now. The global temperature was hotter a couple thousand years ago, most countries' heat records from up to a century ago have not been broken in the last decades. Deserts have actually shrunk in modern times. Most industrial countries' CO2 footprints are no more than a few percent of the CO2 produced from worldwide human breathing. 

While the IPCC panic porn is touring the western world, China is classified as a developing nation until 2060. During 2020 alone they built 50 GW's worth of coal plants, thrice the amount of the rest of the world, with another 74 GW's underway. Let's not forget the recent mass migrations from countries where the average person produces 500kg's of CO2/year, to a lifestyle of 5 tons. Good luck countering all this with paper straws and wind power... which is far more pollutive and destructive to the environment than nuclear energy, which all the panicky environmentalists are shutting down, not to mention that solar and wind power is ineffective to the point that you need to boot up the coal plants yet again to counter the dips. 

At this point it might all just as well be the Rothschilds' plan to create artificial scarcity. No government will be complaining if they can squeeze more taxes on the way. 

  On 8/9/2021 at 9:03 PM, ignatius said:

yeah.. also, the mad man strategy which is what Nixon used. implying he was fucking crazy and drunk and the B52 bombers were always flying and during times of higher threat levels or whatever used as leverage as they would be told to fly closer to legal boundaries or whatever.. literally in the air 24 hours a day for months for weeks/months and stuff like that. 

Stanislav Petrov and the Incident.

  On 8/9/2021 at 9:04 PM, chim said:

Ok so is there any reliable info on this besides the massively politicized IPCC? Their models are pointless, it's all a bunch of ridiculously chaotic variables that just complicate exponentially with each year modeled. They have themselves admitted to skewing the figures towards the extreme. In the 80's NASA "predicted" that parts of NY would be underwater by now. The global temperature was hotter a couple thousand years ago, most countries' heat records from up to a century ago have not been broken in the last decades. Deserts have actually shrunk in modern times. Most industrial countries' CO2 footprints are no more than a few percent of the CO2 produced from worldwide human breathing. 

While the IPCC panic porn is touring the western world, China is classified as a developing nation until 2060. During 2020 alone they built 50 GW's worth of coal plants, thrice the amount of the rest of the world, with another 74 GW's underway. Let's not forget the recent mass migrations from countries where the average person produces 500kg's of CO2/year, to a lifestyle of 5 tons. Good luck countering all this with paper straws and wind power... which is far more pollutive and destructive to the environment than nuclear energy, which all the panicky environmentalists are shutting down, not to mention that solar and wind power is ineffective to the point that you need to boot up the coal plants yet again to counter the dips. 

At this point it might all just as well be the Rothschilds' plan to create artificial scarcity. No government will be complaining if they can squeeze more taxes on the way. 

Expand  

There is one correct point in this flaming garbage scow of nonsense, the IPCC is politicised, it is hamstrung by political governance from the people who have a vested interest in maintaining business as usual, a situation that has ensured that their reports always err on the the side of caution and make conservative predictions. This report is probably closest to verifiable reality than any we have seen previously. 

  On 8/9/2021 at 9:04 PM, chim said:

Ok so is there any reliable info on this besides the massively politicized IPCC? Their models are pointless, it's all a bunch of ridiculously chaotic variables that just complicate exponentially with each year modeled. They have themselves admitted to skewing the figures towards the extreme. In the 80's NASA "predicted" that parts of NY would be underwater by now. The global temperature was hotter a couple thousand years ago, most countries' heat records from up to a century ago have not been broken in the last decades. Deserts have actually shrunk in modern times. Most industrial countries' CO2 footprints are no more than a few percent of the CO2 produced from worldwide human breathing. 

While the IPCC panic porn is touring the western world, China is classified as a developing nation until 2060. During 2020 alone they built 50 GW's worth of coal plants, thrice the amount of the rest of the world, with another 74 GW's underway. Let's not forget the recent mass migrations from countries where the average person produces 500kg's of CO2/year, to a lifestyle of 5 tons. Good luck countering all this with paper straws and wind power... which is far more pollutive and destructive to the environment than nuclear energy, which all the panicky environmentalists are shutting down, not to mention that solar and wind power is ineffective to the point that you need to boot up the coal plants yet again to counter the dips. 

At this point it might all just as well be the Rothschilds' plan to create artificial scarcity. No government will be complaining if they can squeeze more taxes on the way. 

Expand  

co2 parts per billion has been skyrocketting. 

Human beings exhale 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. fossile fuel emissions put 51 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year.

you seem to be consuming garbage 

  On 8/9/2021 at 7:51 PM, droid said:

That's not the case though. Exxon knew in 1978, suppressed their reports and spent millions lobbying to ensure this outcome. Shell did similar. In fact there's probably only about 10,000 people out there that have actively prevented action on this and continue to perpetrate ecocide; the lobbyists, the fossil and big-agri executives, the psychopathic industrialists and billionaires. This is a systemic problem, but there's a good reason why little progress has been made, and these are the people on whom the blame primarily rests. They knew exactly what they were doing. As the saying goes:
 

“The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” 

Expand  

Yeah, i mean this is true. In the end i don't think the majority of humans are evil or want the destruction of the earth. I can honestly say i have not met a lot of truly evil people in my lifetime. The are the exception not the norm. The responsability falls on everyone but not at the same degree it's quite right. A working class dad working in oil has not the same responsability that the Exxon executive. Some guy doing his thing in a remote village sure has not the same imprint that a big industrial CEO.

One of the big issue right now is the horrible leadership we mostly have everywhere. With how politics are are set up right now, its pretty much always the psychopaths that end up in leadership. The political game favours ultra ambitious, egoistical characters. It's quite a big problem. They end up shaping the whole of society from the top. We can't be run forever by psychopaths and expect things to become better. How the hell are we gonna fix leadership is a big question imo. More human scale, localized leadership maybe? less hierarchicaI organization? I don't know. What i know is that the values that are imposed and sold on us as normal by those characters have been accelerating our downfall. The psychopatic view of the world has been quite literally shaping everything and everyone.

The top down poisoning of humanity... it's a shame really. We're a pretty cool species but man, the real fucked specimens truly ruin it big time.

Speaking of which this was a great read concerning the psychology of some of the people ending in power positions:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/08/public-schoolboys-boris-johnson-sad-little-boys-richard-beard

  On 8/9/2021 at 9:04 PM, dcom said:

 

Stanislav Petrov and the Incident.

This guy. What a legend.

Thank goodness for this guy.  Greatest war heroes are those who prevent wars.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/09/worst-polluting-countries-must-make-drastic-carbon-cuts-says-cop26-chief

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/09/ipcc-reports-verdict-on-climate-crimes-of-humanity-guilty-as-hell

  On 8/9/2021 at 5:57 PM, luke viia said:

privileged af

I don’t even own a house so things not gonna be easy for me and mine. Tbh I’m kind of wavering in my dedication to the doctrine of collapsitarianism.

seriously though, it’s so weird to see libtards in the NYT comment sections condemning anyone who isn’t vaccinated while simultaneously saying overpopulation is a huge problem.

there were dozens of these comments on the NYT article. I don’t know what my point is really, I just think it’s funny as hell, imagining Steve from new hampshire typing this.

hilarious.

I’m 100% for full stop on carbon emissions, but the frustrating thing is, I have heard lots of condemnation, but never any official proposals for plans. It’s always just “we have to act, we have to rethink the way we do things, and we must hold those responsible accountable.”

i mean, should we just try out one world government, so we can have some unilateral decision making? The U.S. is infuriating, because covid has taught us that politicians will put politics above speedy legislation and aid even in the face of a huge crisis.

things are obviously very bad. But here are just a couple of seemingly insurmountable problems

1. Suburbia. Maybe people who live in the city don’t fully appreciate how deeply millions of people rely on cars for providing for their families, but personally speaking, I can’t really take the electric bus to Home Depot and buy 18 sheets of drywall. Ok, you say the construction industry as a whole is Irrevocably guilty and needs to be dissolved immediately. I don’t disagree. I merely live in Texas where the opportunity is ripe, but I am trying to pivot into another field, which brings me to my next problem.

2. Global logistics. I’m trying to get into food and beverage. How do I get my supplies in a carbon free world? How do I have a wide enough customer base without relying on carbon based shipment? How do I sell my products without relying on wasteful single use packaging?

it seems like these and many other industries have to be totally rebuilt, and according to the climate report, they have to be totally halted in the meantime. But wait, we don’t have the infrastructure, or even technology, to replace any of these industries, and we won’t for years. Still, if we don’t stop now, climate catastrophe will result. Fine. But how do we do this without societal and economical collapse? Does someone have a good paper that proposes how we do this? Because bringing your own bags to Whole Foods and setting your thermostat to 80 isn’t going to cut it.

Also, with current electricity generation stats(couldn’t find a 2020 pie chart, but fossil fuels has reduced by maybe a couple percentage points), electric cars are essentially consumption laundering.

  On 8/10/2021 at 12:35 PM, sheatheman said:

2. Global logistics. I’m trying to get into food and beverage. How do I get my supplies in a carbon free world? How do I have a wide enough customer base without relying on carbon based shipment? How do I sell my products without relying on wasteful single use packaging?

it seems like these and many other industries have to be totally rebuilt, and according to the climate report, they have to be totally halted in the meantime. But wait, we don’t have the infrastructure, or even technology, to replace any of these industries, and we won’t for years. Still, if we don’t stop now, climate catastrophe will result. Fine. But how do we do this without societal and economical collapse? Does someone have a good paper that proposes how we do this? Because bringing your own bags to Whole Foods and setting your thermostat to 80 isn’t going to cut it.

Expand  

it seems the logical solution is to have locally produced food. start educating people on cultivating own gardens without chemicals, eating seasonal food, etc. that should be taught in elementary schools with a practical approach (outdoors). teach people that all life is interconnected and co-dependent, that you can't take more than you need, etc. but of course, the interest of large capital that is already established in this niche and is pushing for further dominance will never let that happen.

in my country, the culture of growing own food is quite predominant, which is a good thing, but unfortunately it's a domain of older people or pensioners, as younger just don't find it as "cool", or they think they don't have time for it (jobs, families, etc). i have my own garden, and i always find time for it during the day, even if it's only for half an hour. it's not just the benefit of having own food, it's an escape from looking at screens all day and sitting behind the table. it is surprising how much more awareness you can foster that way, as it's easy to forget how important nature is if all your life is spent in air conditioned offices and concrete jungle. lots of bad things happen because of this sort of detachment, but the reality is still there.

  On 8/10/2021 at 1:26 PM, cichlisuite said:

it seems the logical solution is to have locally produced food.

Local production isn't always the most carbon efficient unfortunately. Living in Finland my carbon footprint is lower if I buy an air transported cucumber from Spain rather than a locally grown one because the local cucumbers are cultivated in green houses that use electricity. And if it's also supposed to be seasonal I don't really know what I'm going to be eating for the winter? I guess traditionally Finns didn't eat any fresh vegetables during winter, but rather something you could store in cellars like potatoes and other long lasting root vegetables. Also they didn't live very long. This isn't just a problem with arctic and sub-arctic environments but also for example arid environments that might require massive infrastructure for irrigation.

We should just eat the most carbon efficient food where the calculation is based on both production and transportation footprint. This also probably means giving up on "organic" food because it requires more resources than more efficient methods. Organic food's impact on climate can be 50% higher due to less efficiency.

All this shit should be rethought and romantic notions of environmentalism, like organic food, should be put under debate and scientific inquiry.

It's just a total failure of leadership. Fossil fuels for leccy production should've been phased out years ago. Decades. As soon as nuclear became viable. Knock that on the head and we take a HUGE step forward. Most problems would be solved, we'd just have to deal with cow farts.

Remove all fossil fuels from energy production (completely possible, just needs political will), ban sale of new fossil fuel vehicles NOW, with permanent scrappage, buy back schemes for carbon emitting vehicles (completely possible, just needs political will), ban use of single use plastics in ANY application, standardise materials so everything can be 100% recycled via curbside waste collection (completely possible, just need political will).

Political lobbying should be banned. These industries need to legislated the fuck out of, because they won't change on their own (at the speed we need them to anyway). They need to be forced. Even with air travel and sea freight. Just fucking strongarm them so they're forced to chuck money at the problem and come up with better solutions. They're not going to change until they HAVE to.

I shouldn't be having to make the choice over buying loose carrots or a plastic bag of carrots in packaging that says "not yet recycled" on it. Why the fuck is that choice up to me? Fucking legislate

  On 8/10/2021 at 2:14 PM, zkom said:

All this shit should be rethought and romantic notions of environmentalism, like organic food, should be put under debate and scientific inquiry.

Not sure to whom is the "romantic" remark aimed at, but that logic is just upside down. Isn't more romantic that you receive a cucumber in Finland that travelled the distance of the circumference of the Earth, just so that people can sit on their asses and then throw it away as a surplus, because they are used to that and attach no value to it? There are substantial scientific studies in favor of locally grown food and the nation's food self-sufficiency available everywhere, just look it up. I can understand people having no time or desire to cultivate a garden, but then that is the new luxury they will have to accept and afford, the "new romantic" if you like. It's not just the politics that need to act now because of the global changes, it's everyone, you, me, your friends, your gf or wife...but it's always easier to shift blame and responsibility onto someone else while you sustain the same standard of living as before. That is romantic. There is little romance in cultivating a garden, you need knowledge and work, and get your hands dirty, and sometimes the yield will not be good. But somehow the narrative has shifted that the only hard working and realist people are found in cities and offices, and that is just bubble perception. It's actually the other way around, even more so today and in the years to come.

Regarding eating veggies in winter: people have been making winter supplies since the dawn of agriculture, you know, put it in jars, freezing, damp sand, cellars, drying, granaries, etc. You don't need scientists to know that, it's ancient knowledge that was forgotten because of the romantic capitalism.

With well-thought programs you can make villages and cities self-sufficient, it'a just a matter of will and organisation. But, boohoo that's evil communism! It's not, you can make it work under any system you want, if you want.

  On 8/10/2021 at 2:14 PM, zkom said:

Local production isn't always the most carbon efficient unfortunately. Living in Finland my carbon footprint is lower if I buy an air transported cucumber from Spain rather than a locally grown one because the local cucumbers are cultivated in green houses that use electricity. And if it's also supposed to be seasonal I don't really know what I'm going to be eating for the winter? I guess traditionally Finns didn't eat any fresh vegetables during winter, but rather something you could store in cellars like potatoes and other long lasting root vegetables. Also they didn't live very long. This isn't just a problem with arctic and sub-arctic environments but also for example arid environments that might require massive infrastructure for irrigation.

We should just eat the most carbon efficient food where the calculation is based on both production and transportation footprint. This also probably means giving up on "organic" food because it requires more resources than more efficient methods. Organic food's impact on climate can be 50% higher due to less efficiency.

All this shit should be rethought and romantic notions of environmentalism, like organic food, should be put under debate and scientific inquiry.

Expand  

i think the idea of local food thinking is more that someone in your position shouldn’t eat cucumbers. eat what you can grow there easily and possibly even grows there naturally, and by small farmers, etc.