Multiple sources say that around 40-60% (depending on the source) of the worlds crops are used to feed the live stock. That's enough to feed hundreds of millions of people.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NASA: Earth warming at unprecedented pace, unlikely to stay in Paris T° range
- Status
Multiple sources say that around 40-60% (depending on the source) of the worlds crops are used to feed the live stock. That's enough to feed hundreds of millions of people.
Insane Metal
Member
Yes, it's estimated around 40-45 years. Sorry for my bad wording.
maquiladora
Member
That is similar to the same argument climate change deniers make by cherry-picking where the temperature dropped slightly somewhere one year, instead of looking at the long term trend.
The Illiterati
Member
Quit passing the blame towards rich people? They could fix this in ten years if they tried.
Poor people can't do jack about this, and for every hamburger I -don't- eat and hour less I run my electricity, there's a rich bastard with a dozen houses and command of a huge industry working with a carbon footprint the size of God, stomping on each and every one of our futures.
But this is the new "bootstraps" for poors. Turn your lights off and lay in the heat, starving, you worthless sacks of crap.
Poor people can't do jack about this, and for every hamburger I -don't- eat and hour less I run my electricity, there's a rich bastard with a dozen houses and command of a huge industry working with a carbon footprint the size of God, stomping on each and every one of our futures.
But this is the new "bootstraps" for poors. Turn your lights off and lay in the heat, starving, you worthless sacks of crap.
Any sort of scenarios presented regarding climate change are basically best guess scenarios. There is obviously historical precedents but even those aren't absolutely factual since the historical records even from deep ocean sites cannot clearly provide exact measurements about the amount of time it took for huge changes in temperature or level of the oceanic water mass. The more water there is in the Ocean the more unpredictable are the tides and how our planet interacts with the moon. Since these types of occurrences have no way of being studied. There is a variety of reasons to take a worst case scenario approach. It's unprecedented!
How exactly does anyone picture a sudden rise of the ocean by a couple of meters?
There have been instances in the past where there was catastrophic climate shifts in a matter of decades. Currently we have reached similar proportions of dangers. We do not know how quickly the situation spirals out of control. We've seen drastic disappearance of ice in the Arctic, we could see thousands or even millions of islands disappearing in the coarse of the decade. There would be literally billions of displaced people, a full blown economic and financial disaster with huge traffic of people trying to make their way to what little civilization is left in the World.
There are no guarantees this will happen in 5, 10 or 100 years or even ever, all scientists studying the subject have agreed that the situation is out of control and that it will occur.
So the question is are we prepared for a worst case scenario in the next decade and I don't think anyone thinks we are anywhere near ready.
What is occurring is an unprecedented occurrence in humanity's history in it's current form. How Neanderthals fared with climate change is not something which can be used as a barometer of future success.
We do not know how sudden - the actual studies on the matter cannot actualize the speed of changes by more than a few hungred years. It's not an exact science that tells you how exactly this changed occured it's just scientists see clues regarding in the temp/sea levels via sedimentary rocks and ice cores
Earth's Climate History from Glaciers and Ice Cores - Lonnie Thompson
I speak only from my experience from talking with and watching scientists talk about the subject. Most scientists agreed that the measures we've taken are inadequate - every year the actual warming is faster than predicted, ice is melting faster than predicted, change is occurring faster than predicted.. catch the drift
Like I said picture water rising by 1-2 meters in two years, picture king tides spurred by the additional water mass on the planet and picture a lot more seismic activity due to these rapid changes. We are talking worst case scenario - we are no where near ready. I'm not saying it will destroy civilization, since we are pretty adaptive - just major changes will occur probably at a sociological level due to such an event.
How exactly does anyone picture a sudden rise of the ocean by a couple of meters?
There have been instances in the past where there was catastrophic climate shifts in a matter of decades. Currently we have reached similar proportions of dangers. We do not know how quickly the situation spirals out of control. We've seen drastic disappearance of ice in the Arctic, we could see thousands or even millions of islands disappearing in the coarse of the decade. There would be literally billions of displaced people, a full blown economic and financial disaster with huge traffic of people trying to make their way to what little civilization is left in the World.
There are no guarantees this will happen in 5, 10 or 100 years or even ever, all scientists studying the subject have agreed that the situation is out of control and that it will occur.
So the question is are we prepared for a worst case scenario in the next decade and I don't think anyone thinks we are anywhere near ready.
What is occurring is an unprecedented occurrence in humanity's history in it's current form. How Neanderthals fared with climate change is not something which can be used as a barometer of future success.
We do not know how sudden - the actual studies on the matter cannot actualize the speed of changes by more than a few hungred years. It's not an exact science that tells you how exactly this changed occured it's just scientists see clues regarding in the temp/sea levels via sedimentary rocks and ice cores
Earth's Climate History from Glaciers and Ice Cores - Lonnie Thompson
I speak only from my experience from talking with and watching scientists talk about the subject. Most scientists agreed that the measures we've taken are inadequate - every year the actual warming is faster than predicted, ice is melting faster than predicted, change is occurring faster than predicted.. catch the drift
Like I said picture water rising by 1-2 meters in two years, picture king tides spurred by the additional water mass on the planet and picture a lot more seismic activity due to these rapid changes. We are talking worst case scenario - we are no where near ready. I'm not saying it will destroy civilization, since we are pretty adaptive - just major changes will occur probably at a sociological level due to such an event.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
oh rly
China Curbs Plans for More Coal-Fired Power Plants
Statistics From China Say Coal Consumption Continues to Drop
China’s Carbon Emissions May Have Peaked, but It’s Hazy
I... what? No it isn't, our oceans have been both far higher and far shallower in our geological past.
How does one define "sudden", and I can post you image reports of what 1m,2m,3m,5m sea level rise does to coastal areas, so it's pretty easy to picture it.
You're sprouting pretty strange stuff. I've only seen one study in the past that has extreme extrapolation and has been given a very critical eye about the possiblity of major sea level rise within a time period of decades, one study.
Nobody is saying we're at risk within the next decade of a major climate catastrophe that will destroy civilization, you are sprouting nonsense. Nobody is saying "it will occur", what the scientific community is saying, that as we increase global temperatures the likelihood of major events increase, not that "oh well we increased global temperatures by 1.5C, everything is habbedin!"
Mistake
Gold Member
My car is old as hell, so I'll be buying something more efficient. And yeah, recycling is still a big problem in the US and other countries. It should be mandatory. There's plenty we can all do, but is going to happen in five years? I seriously doubt it. Politics takes too long
Spamification1
Neo Member
Just as I was getting over my slight depression over the last global warming Gaf thread this one shows up. Someone give me something hopeful.
Clockwork5
Member
Hey everyone,
It's too late.
It's too late.
China is doing more than anyone else while still being a developing nation.
If that's true then we're already fucked. This would be shit from the 70's hitting us. The 80's and 90's alone would kill us.
Like why even bother?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
#sadbuttrue
it's not, it's around a decade to a decade and a half "gap".
And no, we're not going to die because there is a gap between warming and emissions. Society is functioning perfectly fine right now, we're not going to magically go belly up in two more decades due to increase pressure of environmental constraints. This is why major countries who have been responsible for the current warming are in talks with developing countries. Developed countries will be, for the most part, fine. It's going to be expensive for developed countries, unlike developing countries who are going to face major hardships due to the lack of advanced infrastructure.
Gunstarheroes
Member
We've had posts in this thread that at least show a path to curbing and giving us time to try and figure out how we can adapt. That seems possible.
I just hate that a majority of the thread is "The human race is garbage, everything is over, GG". Being critical, even being pessimistic i can handle, but people almost racing to tell you how fucked we are, it just really gets at me.
A decade is more reasonable as if it was 40 years then we would be screwed as it seems like we're close to hitting 1.5 anyway. With an increase in the emissions levels in the 80s and 90s it seems like that would easily push us over the 2C limit.
It depends on the severity of the water levels, acidity, and weather issues. Countries aren't going to quietly let tens of millions of people starve.
Wind and Solar are hitting record lows every year as their installation rates increase. We already have places in the US where wind is cheaper than gas, and solar is cheaper than gas.
Five years time you won't have to be in a unique area to have renewable energy be cheeper than conventional energy. The world is already installing more renewable energy than carbon based, the transition is already happening.
Anyone who says "omg it's tooo laaaaate" just needs to stop posting. Seriously. I take this subject as one of the top two in terms of global issues and how I vote in elections, I tend to try and stay up to date as much as possible. Going into every single thread about this subject isn't making me mad because of whatever news I'm reading, it makes me mad because I see a bunch of apathy from people who clearly just want to react all sad and gloomy because it's easy.
Lets read the thread title. Yes, Earth is warming at unprecedented rates, yea no shit, we've been talking about that for the last two decades. Staying within Paris target range of 1.5C is near impossible with current emission rates. Yea, no shit, that was openly talked about during the negotiations. Without more substantive emission cuts, we will fail to stay under 2C. Yes, once again, these were center point of the Paris talks last year that Paris alone will not solve our issues. These are not "dirty little secrets" that the man doesn't want you to know.
We fucking know this, anyone who spends 15 minutes reading up on the most historic global climate deal will understand what Paris was about. It's not the "OMG WE FIXED EVERYTHING WOOO!" deal, it never was. It was the framework to do something that we should have started 20 years ago, a framework to continuously come back to the table and figure out what each country can do to continue their emissions decrease.
Ten years from now the targets we put out will be obsolete because battery tech + renewable + EV's will be so far ahead that any projection from major energy institutions will be horribly out of date and simply wrong (you know, like how they have been for the last 15 years in terms of cost of Wind/Solar and total amount installed). We take these emission trends and bake in China hitting peak coal in 2020, with 2030 being their peek emission (at best), yet we now know they hit peak coal in 2013 and are having historic cutbacks on coal production and usage. We bake in these trends with horribly conservative estimates on renewable energy, even when we have learning rates putting coal into the danger zone of being too expensive than solar in a decade.
Also I swear to god if I see one more person post that study on how agriculture is somehow 50% of global emissions I'm going to break a fucking gasket.
Yes, this is scary stuff when looking at the numerous consequences of our failure to act, but just going around spreading apathy is literally one of the worst things you could do.
also agriculture accounts for around 15-20% of global emissions iirc, so anyone telling you it's somehow magically half of global emissions are quoting a single study that has been peer reviewed to death and heavily criticized in their methodology
That thread, and article was complete bullshit. I couldn't find a single source they quoted backing up their claim. The only thing I saw was a reference to IEA having an emissions scenario of having 3.5C baked in by 2080 or something. No current emission scenerio has the world hitting 3.5C in 20 years.
Great post, exactly my perspective.
Those are all problems, but they are not problems we can realistically hope to solve through the power of united altruism. Point fingers at individuals misses the forest for the trees.
It is just unrealistic more then anything. Not at the rate and pace we need change to happen.
This is why we have governments or at least this is an issue that is showing why they are absolutely necessary when it comes to the health of the planet.
We need policy that shifts the economies of these major producers of pollution and to prevent new ones from emerging.
It doesnt matter if I go live in the forest or I even get an entire town to to go with me, it won't change the trajectory.
Public transport over car, electric\gas car if need to be
Avoid air travel
Avoid eating beef (Contrary to popular belief, most other meats don't produce particular co2)
But mainly: Lobby for Nuclear\Wind\Solar\Water mix over coal\oil\gas, but especially over coal. The vast majority of co2 production can be solved with EVs + nonfossil energy sources.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Nice try with that GIF, OP. They didn't have computers back then to start the making of that GIF.
Checkmate, believers.
Checkmate, believers.
mercenar1e
Member
The republicans doesnt believe climate change is real and Washington is doing everything they can to avoid placing taxes on the sectors that are contributing to the problem. It's too late.
Anyone remember this scene from Newsroom from like 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM0uZ9mfOUI
Such innocent times.
Such innocent times.
Sometimes I like to ponder and ask: what if we heeded concerns back in the 70s? What if we didn't mock Jimmy Carter and his White House solar panels? What if we invested significant amounts of money into renewable technology decades ago. How much farther ahead of the curve would we be? Could China, India, Nigeria, and other emerging technological countries been able to start farther ahead than they are now and skipped repeating the West's mistakes?
I'm happy that the world is taking this seriously today, but we're behind where we could've been - where we should've been. History will judge us harshly, and we deserve it.
I'm happy that the world is taking this seriously today, but we're behind where we could've been - where we should've been. History will judge us harshly, and we deserve it.
The sad part, though, is that the world doesn't seem to be taking this seriously. The very fact that it's gotten this badly so quickly shows that they're not. If it isn't already too late, major governments and those who can actually make a significant difference won't take action until it is too late.
Unknown Soldier
Member
There is little to no evidence the world is taking this seriously today.
The good news is even if all the world's surface ice melted, it won't actually inundate the entire landmass of the Earth.
The bad new is the planet's climate would likely become uninhabitable for all living organisms today, most likely causing a mass extinction event and wiping us out unless we figure out how to build underground and start a new society under the surface of the Earth. This is assuming we won't just kill ourselves through global thermonuclear warfare while fighting over the dwindling resources on the surface first.
Elfforkusu
Member
Work on synthesizing hydrocarbons, bruhs. Li-ion ain't gonna do it.
Embrace nuclear power, bruhs. Wind and solar ain't gonna do it.
If we're not willing to commit to these things, we're not serious about solving the problem. Energy austerity (sorry, should I say "conservation"?) isn't going to fix anything.
If we're not serious about solving the problem, we should be ok with the consequences. Put on your shades, wait for the sea levels to rise, wait for the droughts and floods to topple weak governments like they did in Syria. Maybe they'll topple a government with nuclear weapons next time.
But at least we're better than the Republicans, am I right?
Embrace nuclear power, bruhs. Wind and solar ain't gonna do it.
If we're not willing to commit to these things, we're not serious about solving the problem. Energy austerity (sorry, should I say "conservation"?) isn't going to fix anything.
If we're not serious about solving the problem, we should be ok with the consequences. Put on your shades, wait for the sea levels to rise, wait for the droughts and floods to topple weak governments like they did in Syria. Maybe they'll topple a government with nuclear weapons next time.
But at least we're better than the Republicans, am I right?
maniac-kun
Member
The truth probably is the political leaders will take action when the first cities will drown. Maybe some damage can then still be prevented.
The best way to make the world taking this seriously is to make green energy profitable (and fossil fuels too expensive). Fortunately, that's what's happening right now. Heck, even Airbus is doing research for hybrid airplanes, which could lower the kerosine consumption significantly.
That's why I tend to vote for green liberals, which actually have an own party in my country.
TheSecondSpitter
Member
The Artisan
Member
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1118312&highlight=Earth was getting old anyway. We'll just colonize another planet.
Can anyone say Mars?
Contractor on a climate change contract here. Had a dude from NASA recently give a talk at one of our meetings.
Remember the Syrian refugee crisis? How it has caused numerous issues worldwide? We're already starting at climate change displacing magnitudes more people. That future is already locked in no matter what we do now barring a miracle. Get ready folks, cause we will see that play out in our lifetime.
Hopefully we can get our shit together someday.
Remember the Syrian refugee crisis? How it has caused numerous issues worldwide? We're already starting at climate change displacing magnitudes more people. That future is already locked in no matter what we do now barring a miracle. Get ready folks, cause we will see that play out in our lifetime.
Hopefully we can get our shit together someday.
Yeah, knew I should've qualified that with a "more seriously" there. Because compared to 15 years ago, we absolutely are making a ton of progress because it's being taken more seriously. Yeah, we were in a bottomless pit back then and only now have just started to slow down the descent, but even that is still better than continuing to hoist ourselves down with reckless abandon. When we can get new blood running the world, maybe we can then work on stopping the descent and actually start climbing up.
Dancing Queen
Banned
Going vegan would be a start.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Went to the beach this Sunday in Redondo Beach, C.A. You can definitely see a difference in the sea level. Some of the beach appeared to have eroded away, my Mom even thought it looked like we were furhter below sea level. I know my eye's are not a good judgement of sea level, it just seemed oddly higher than I remember.
Politicians don't want to spend money to help decrease global warming not realizing that it costs way more to relocate people and clean up any disasters caused by the rise in sea levels and extreme storms.
Can we get to lab-grown meat and renewable energy yet? I want to still see snow when I'm old
Can we get to lab-grown meat and renewable energy yet? I want to still see snow when I'm old
iamaustrian
Member
I don't think self driving cars will be a thing in the US for a long time. in this country a 2 ton truck is the best selling car and gas is less than half of EU prices.
whitemex88
Member
But how will I know that my food had a good life. What was his/her name?
Yeah, it's pretty twisted. We could probably end world hunger tomorrow if everyone just agreed to boycott meat products but it seems that most people would rather have a ham sandwich
PdotMichael
Banned
Based on what?
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Interesting post, thanks. That said I'm still bloody pessimistic about the whole thing. Too many people with real power who are not only doing nothing to help, but actively deny it's happening or worse, are working against it.Wind and Solar are hitting record lows every year as their installation rates increase. We already have places in the US where wind is cheaper than gas, and solar is cheaper than gas.
Five years time you won't have to be in a unique area to have renewable energy be cheeper than conventional energy. The world is already installing more renewable energy than carbon based, the transition is already happening.
Anyone who says "omg it's tooo laaaaate
Lets read the thread title. Yes, Earth is warming at unprecedented rates, yea no shit, we've been talking about that for the last two decades. Staying within Paris target range of 1.5C is near impossible with current emission rates. Yea, no shit, that was openly talked about during the negotiations. Without more substantive emission cuts, we will fail to stay under 2C. Yes, once again, these were center point of the Paris talks last year that Paris alone will not solve our issues. These are not "dirty little secrets" that the man doesn't want you to know.
We fucking know this, anyone who spends 15 minutes reading up on the most historic global climate deal will understand what Paris was about. It's not the "OMG WE FIXED EVERYTHING WOOO!" deal, it never was. It was the framework to do something that we should have started 20 years ago, a framework to continuously come back to the table and figure out what each country can do to continue their emissions decrease.
Ten years from now the targets we put out will be obsolete because battery tech + renewable + EV's will be so far ahead that any projection from major energy institutions will be horribly out of date and simply wrong (you know, like how they have been for the last 15 years in terms of cost of Wind/Solar and total amount installed). We take these emission trends and bake in China hitting peak coal in 2020, with 2030 being their peek emission (at best), yet we now know they hit peak coal in 2013 and are having historic cutbacks on coal production and usage. We bake in these trends with horribly conservative estimates on renewable energy, even when we have learning rates putting coal into the danger zone of being too expensive than solar in a decade.
Also I swear to god if I see one more person post that study on how agriculture is somehow 50% of global emissions I'm going to break a fucking gasket.
Yes, this is scary stuff when looking at the numerous consequences of our failure to act, but just going around spreading apathy is literally one of the worst things you could do.
also agriculture accounts for around 15-20% of global emissions iirc, so anyone telling you it's somehow magically half of global emissions are quoting a single study that has been peer reviewed to death and heavily criticized in their methodology
That thread, and article was complete bullshit. I couldn't find a single source they quoted backing up their claim. The only thing I saw was a reference to IEA having an emissions scenario of having 3.5C baked in by 2080 or something. No current emission scenerio has the world hitting 3.5C in 20 years.
It's all so very infuriating.
Thanks, Harper!Always-honest
Banned
Yeah it seems like it has to be an acute worldwide effort. Like, right now and EVERYONE, including rich people and companies.
So yeah, not happening.
I feel bad as a father. Really fucking bad.
So yeah, not happening.
I feel bad as a father. Really fucking bad.
Auto-Reply
Member
If you think about it, that's not really the main concern. It's the fall of quality of life of the "ordered civilization" in a globalized world.
What will happen when many regions on earth where people are living right now become uninhabitable? Some die, but the majority will move to zones where the climate is still acceptable. Too many people on the same spot, not enough food and water. A recipe for disaster.
When this becomes a global problem then the plague and both world wars combined will look tame in comparison.
Once everything has settled, humanity will still be around and the dominant power on this planet, it will be a different world as we know it today though.
Things change, they don't always change for the better.
That's how I imagine it going down at the moment. I am not expecting this to be calm process that will be dealt with in time and accordingly/humanely.
Not just them. What do you think you're posting on? Carbon is being burned to power your computer, drive the electronics to you, get you to work, etc.
Right now gas is cheap and SUV sales have spiked as a result. No one really gives a damn, not enough to inconvenience them at least.
Seriously, our way of life would have to change dramatically for us to avoid this disaster. We'd have to abandon the suburbs, abandon industrial meat production, cut our energy use in half, abandon air travel... We could do it as a society but no way we will. Human beings react to problems with short term patches, not proactively deal with problems in a long-term way. We just aren't evolved to do it as a species.
- Status