Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


climate change

- Tue, 07 Aug 2018 05:17:20 EST qv3Bs+v/ No.79191
File: 1533633440593.jpg -(96517B / 94.25KB, 1024x576) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. climate change
How fucked are we? Are there any viable solutions? How will the world look like in 50 years? 100years?
Forgive me if this isn't the right board but i'm too hot to do a lot of effort.
Thomas Bublinghodge - Tue, 07 Aug 2018 09:05:37 EST OdR7meD+ No.79192 Reply
Right after reading your post, I came across this: https://features.weather.com/exodus/about/ . It's about the current/coming mass migrations due to climate change.

>Are there any viable solutions?
We're on the verge of crossing the point where geoengineering is the only viable solution. However, nobody really wants to do this because of how risky it is. There's always unforseen consequences, and if you're trying to engineer the global climate, who the hell knows what could go wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

You could try being optimistic, like: after Trump is gone, america will come to its senses and take the lead in combatting climate change... But that's obviously not gonna happen. About half our population will fight any action on climate change, no matter what.
Martin Bardhood - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 16:42:21 EST dl9lAnzN No.79195 Reply
>>How fucked are we?
Moderately fucked, but it depends on your definition of fucking. Certainly, the world will change. Almost inevitably, some parts of the earth that are now habitable won't be. There may be food crises, but that might be offset by a greening north (most of earth's land mass is in the northern hemisphere.) There will almost certainly be water crises unless we can improve desalination technology and fast.

However, unless in the process of that we start going crazy (as we are liable to do) nothing about that is an existential threat to our species. We would survive it...however, 90% of animal species probably wouldn't. I imagine the 22nd century will be kinda like the world of Blade Runner...animals and forests are something you read about in books and museums, while almost all available space is converted to high tech farms to eke out enough calories to feed the planet using the few remaining (probably insect) species for food.

Alternatively, the AI may take over during this century and put an end to all this nonsense before that can happen. That's our actual best case scenario.
Martin Drablingville - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:04:53 EST quGHpYNb No.79220 Reply
the solution is to first replace all of the GHG-producing crap with non-GHG-producing crap, particularly electricity generation (to solar/wind/nuclear generation with hydro/battery storage) and transportation (to battery electric), but also we need to deal with fertilizer, cement, landfills and cows, roughly in that order. only AFTER that is completed we can start fucking with aerosols or satellites or other weird ideas
Charles Codgefat - Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:48:08 EST dl9lAnzN No.79221 Reply
Humans are the problem, so let's make 'inverse humans' to balance the equation and reach stability.

Humans are a carbon-based machine that chaotically pollutes the environment by consuming oxygen and organic tissue for energy and expels carbon dioxide and bacterial mats(poo.)

Our robot is therefore a silicon-based (silicon is much more abundant on earth than carbon) machine which runs an organized program to clean its environment, consuming carbon dioxide and bacteria to sustain internal bioreactors that exhale oxygen and produce sugar, which then powers the machine. Then we need 7 billion of them.

We're never going to make humans be better or more responsible, it's utterly futile to try to bet on some 'better angels of our nature' solution. We need to design something that, as it seeks it's own natural path of least resistance, naturally counter-weights our own natural path of least resistance.
trypto - Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:56:41 EST OdR7meD+ No.79223 Reply
Sounds like you're gonna make photosynthesizing robots that consume humans for nutrients.
Matilda Blinderhun - Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:16:45 EST dl9lAnzN No.79224 Reply
Well, humans aren't made of bacterial mats, so no, my suggestion was robots that consume human poop for nutrients and breathe human exhale to fix carbon into sucrose. Like all lifeforms, they would only engage in the behaviors they were programmed to do, so if we gave them the instinct to fear and obey humans, they would. However, even if they went out of control and killed off humanity, they would do more for balancing the ecosystem in that than we've ever done. From the standpoint of survival for life on earth, it's a win-win scenario.
Sophie Dreblingstock - Tue, 28 Aug 2018 20:23:45 EST tILXSiV3 No.79225 Reply

I want to see a movie where those things evolve to eat humans.
Phineas Sindernudge - Mon, 15 Oct 2018 20:15:20 EST qoflDW9i No.79244 Reply
sorry there's no upcoming planetary cataclysm, just more fearmongering to promote idiotic carbon cap and trade schemes to keep
this bogus global financial ponzi system running.
Phineas Sindernudge - Mon, 15 Oct 2018 20:16:04 EST qoflDW9i No.79245 Reply
sorry there's no upcoming planetary cataclysm, just more fearmongering to promote idiotic carbon cap and trade schemes to keep
this bogus global financial ponzi system running.
Martha Fummerdale - Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:09:28 EST dl9lAnzN No.79246 Reply
sorry this is a science board no one is gonna bite for your bogus global big oil ponzi scheme, read a book read a book read a motherfuckin book ya gashill
Fuck Mubberstone - Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:37:29 EST X+zhyYNN No.79280 Reply
>after Trump is gone

How about we build a railgun and use the Earth's curvature to snipe that useless fatfuck straight through the everything with a tungsten bar moving at several times the speed of sound?
Hedda Gallerseg - Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:37:36 EST v7HwwHvm No.79288 Reply
Climate Change is low IQ ecology
William Mizzlehood - Fri, 07 Dec 2018 14:12:36 EST H2dReURr No.79296 Reply
Because Trump already has a death ray and is the one signing off on development of the railguns. Duh, maybe if you didn't rely on the MSM for news you'd know this.
James Sinkinpod - Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:09:48 EST 5yccGinj No.79297 Reply
California just mandated solar panels and solar power for all new homes

everyone doing that would be easy if they decided to, but our world is controlled by evil oilmoney makers OP.
Caroline Sembledotch - Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:30:02 EST dl9lAnzN No.79299 Reply
But solar isn't a good renewable alternative everywhere. And why put the onus on homeowners instead of power companies?
Martin Worthingshaw - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 04:15:35 EST H2dReURr No.79301 Reply
It's a method of slowing the collapse of the housing bubble. This significantly raises the cost of constructing new homes, in a way that the scales are entirely fucked against cheaper homes. It's a means of market manipulation.
Angus Murdridge - Sun, 14 Apr 2019 00:54:27 EST tS892d3+ No.79365 Reply
>>About half our population will fight any action on climate change,

that's because alarmist blather has been going on for at least 2 decades, e.g., saying 15 years ago that we had 10 years to stop climate change or we'd be inundated by repeated massive hurricanes, etc. I remember some nitwit in Australia claiming that by 2015 everyone down there would have to move underground to escape the heat.

If you'd have just framed things in terms people could relate to, like becoming energy independent or simple pollution control, you'd have gotten much farther.

Instead you leftists attacked historically democrat coal mining areas, turning them republican, and spouted off the most extremist dire predictions, none of which have come true.

Enjoy your ruined planet.
Martha Mennerdock - Sun, 14 Apr 2019 06:59:45 EST N1LBmRNI No.79368 Reply
It's mostly because in the 80s oil companies realised climate change was a thing and then decided to pour money into keeping quiet.


It's not "alarmist blather" as much as people shut out stuff they don't like. You're evidence of this. The tone has changed from "we have 10 years" to "the damage is done but we might not all die if we act now". They frame it as "we can do something" because people are going to be less inclined to act.

Also "it's a problem for later me/my kids".

Oh and lastly because it doesn't matter what we do if we don't make industry follow. And we can't because if you live somewhere that isn't a warzone they probably own your country and it's worthless politicians and leaders.

It pays for itself in most places. Unless you're bordering the arctic circle or have a weird microclimate where it's always cloudy it will be worthwhile. Now aside from tidal power most renewable energy doesn't provide a predictable steady power supply but that's why you use a mix of sources and storage mediums and possibly non renewable resources, but to the most limited extent possible.
Beatrice Siblingtog - Tue, 07 May 2019 10:34:47 EST 2Rt7PycG No.79411 Reply
Sooooo, you mean plants? If we adopted more ecologically sound farming practices we could turn all that carbon into very rich and fertile soil. It's even possible to create selfsequestering soil by using biochars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
Shitting Grandfoot - Tue, 07 May 2019 13:12:24 EST QiRUncgI No.79412 Reply
Plants are good, but plants aren't robots. shit I'd never though I'd have to type I was highlighting how much work there is to be done in general to solve climate change, how you need people to do work, but people themselves exacerbate the problem all the way down to the metabolic level. I was positing something that could do the work of a human, but be metabolically carbon fixing instead of carbon expelling.

If you can teach a tree to build a sea wall or re-wire a power grid, I'm fine with that too.
Beatrice Siblingtog - Tue, 07 May 2019 13:50:53 EST 2Rt7PycG No.79413 Reply
A balanced ecosystem can cycle nutrients in a semi-closed loop, while sequestering a part in the form of soil fertility. Our poop actually used to be a valued commodity ("night soil") before we invented artificial fertilizers, so I wouldn't consider it as garbage per se. If we use plants (which we need to eat anyway) to offset our own emmisions in a closed loop we can sustain ourselves indefinetely. We can still make robots to do shitty jobs ofcourse, it's just silly to invent something that million of years of evolution already designed for us to utilize.

The civilization that made the fertile soils in the Amazon actually had such a system that supported millions before smallpox wiped them out. This is actually quite hard to do because tropical soils are very poor due to erosion. And because the biochar in these soils hosts fungal and bacterial life (which live and die within the charcoal) it actually passively sequesters even more carbon without any human interaction.
Lillian Pockhood - Wed, 08 May 2019 17:40:39 EST QiRUncgI No.79414 Reply
>>We can still make robots to do shitty jobs ofcourse, it's just silly to invent something that million of years of evolution already designed for us to utilize.
W-what? But that's why/how we invented everything. Why invent wheels when evolution spent millions of years evolving perfectly good legs for you? Besides; a.) using bioreactors to process human waste is using even more ancient evolutionary technology, bacteria, so the same argument applies (plus, there may be virtue to keeping human waste out of the loop without processing first due to how toxic it is) and b.) just because evolution came up with something doesn't mean its necessarily good or optimal. Remember evolution almost destroyed the whole biosphere during the oxygen crisis. So there's plenty of reasons to still think about optimizing the solutions nature provides, even if we use them as a starting point.
Matilda Pittspear - Thu, 09 May 2019 02:43:19 EST 2Rt7PycG No.79415 Reply
Ofcourse, but wheels only work for a more narrow set of circumstances. I'm not saying that we should only use evolutionary designs, or not improve on them. But if there is an evolutionary design that is already 'optimal' for the job we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel.

What do you mean that human waste is toxic? I would guess the traces of medication, because in other respects it's not different from another animals dung.

I brought up the soil building example because at the rate we're squandering the organic matter in our agricultural soils we won't be able to grow anything soon even with fossil fuel based artificial fertilizers.
Charles Honeydock - Thu, 09 May 2019 20:45:32 EST QiRUncgI No.79417 Reply
>>What do you mean that human waste is toxic?
Humans consume many more toxic substances than most animals, and that can accumulate in biological systems. Other problems are present too; for example, North Korea, which uses human waste as fertilizer almost exclusively due to sanctions, has the highest prevalence of digestive parasites in the world. It would be nice if human waste was as healthy as it was back when it was a major component of fertilizer, but sometimes the genie can't go back in the bottle.
Lillian Clayfield - Fri, 10 May 2019 04:48:22 EST 2Rt7PycG No.79418 Reply
Heavy metals and residue form medication is a problem, but the parasite/disease thing is just them being retards. Even something simple as a hot compost can mitigate those.

Industrialized countries still use a lot of human waste from the sewage system as agricultural fertilizer, but because it's mixed in with gey water it's a lot more work than it would be in a more decentralized system.
Charlotte Havinggold - Tue, 21 May 2019 21:14:32 EST Hr/Y4hP3 No.79420 Reply
1558487672141.jpg -(340376B / 332.40KB, 490x1082) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
How about we do nothing and just die out in 10,000 years?

Problem solved.
Hannah Bocklechot - Wed, 22 May 2019 17:33:34 EST 8Lh4u3KX No.79421 Reply
AIFK it's just modern civilization that's threatened. We are highly dependent on industrial agriculture that needs vast troths of irrigable land.

A medieval level society would do just fine.
Ironically so would one having fusion powered water desalination.
Shitting Pickham - Fri, 12 Jul 2019 06:04:17 EST BBYN7ZKo No.79496 Reply
1562925857267.jpg -(111291B / 108.68KB, 1024x972) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Climate Change is happening, no question about it. The only question is *HOW* will it affect the environment.
Augustus Trothood - Tue, 20 Aug 2019 04:12:09 EST W+fNKKVr No.79545 Reply
The answer to that question is "Bad enough to piss our pants either way"
Charles Dartham - Fri, 01 May 2020 21:20:58 EST bTDTgq6J No.79862 Reply
yes it is risky. the only thing the climate science deniers have, as far as points go, is that lowering the carbon dioxide levels will have an adverse effect on life. they are correct in saying that in past times there were extremely high levels of carbon dioxide and that this follows population growth of past animal populations.

but getting past that, and assuming we could find an atmospheric makeup to shoot for, and we can maintain it, it's possible. with so many countless unidentified species on the planet, we will inadvertently kill off anything that would have incidentally flourished under the new conditions. however to adapt the animals must be able to migrate, and we have taken all of their corridors away from them.

it was 5 years ago that world scientists told us we had used over 50% of the available land area, and that even if we all stopped having kids right now there is no longer enough space for the animal kingdom to recover. that's scary. so the issue isn't the environment or scrubbing technology or population engineering, it's space.

there are traditional solutions to space that we can utilize here, but it scares the shit out of people and this direction is not for the faint of heart, because it will reshape the entire planet forever.
Charles Dartham - Fri, 01 May 2020 21:30:23 EST bTDTgq6J No.79863 Reply
when people need space, we take the footprint of what we were working with and begin stacking it on top of itself. we build up. but in order to stack more space, we need bigger tiles. skyscrapers are already very large buildings and there is almost no feasible way to make them larger. the current size already make water distribution, personnel foot traffic, even wastewater and firefighting becomes complicated in super size buildings. the solution to this is to create more land for more buildings, instead of making one giant building the size of a state.

The Megacity Decks are the solution to this problem, providing real earthen decks with land that can be Settled. All design concerns have been dealt with, the real problem is how psychologically threatened people feel about this development. you can attack this idea from all sides and it will stand tall, i assure you, and as well the solutions are out of this world.

the best thing about it, however, is that the creation of the first megacity deck itself will completely change the entire world and center the world economy around itself. the amount of raw opportunity in the megacity cannot be overstated because construction and investment subsidies ensure that companies will fight to bid on the contracts to build the greatest structure since the pyramids. entirely new fields of science will have to be disclosed to the average person just to help them cope with the fact that there are no materials science barriers to creating materials of near infinite strength, and there will be no limitation to deck span and ceiling elevation. The fact that the power generation system makes fresh water as a byproduct will also ensure that as many civilians as possible will move to the megacity to claim land on the decks and settle it for themselves, completely circumventing the gambit of buying into real estate.
Charles Dartham - Fri, 01 May 2020 21:41:55 EST bTDTgq6J No.79864 Reply
fear of hydraulic despotism is warranted, but you want to give the water away for free in order to attract as many people and businesses to the megacity as possible. each deck will be diverse, and so the decks between themselves. different crops will grow under different angles of light and elevation. higher decks, once built, will have better views and command higher rent once settled and built out. the lower levels will be more suitable for conservation efforts, acting as a land bridge where the footprint of the first deck resides. each deck will be a self sufficient city state complete with it's own localized emergency response systems et cetera. no attack on the government or status quo or powers that be is necessary, because each nation's existing typology for creating townships, localities and municipalities, states and provinces will completely apply to the megacity, as well as state and federal law. if megacities want representation and statehood they can apply for it, like northern california.

as the population of consumers is drawn off the land and into the megacities, the rural people who want to stay on god's earth and only visit the megacity for the Olympics will enjoy lowered population density, lowered pollution, and a restoration of animal habitats and corridors. as people who disagree with each other move away, the remaining voters will have a more proportionate voice. this takes consumer class citizens and puts them in a metropolis that affords them every luxury. you want gibs? we got gibs. you want security? a base for ever branch of the military on every deck. the more problems you throw at the idea, the more it morphs around them and creates more zeal, more growth, more freedom, more potential.
Charles Dartham - Fri, 01 May 2020 21:54:31 EST bTDTgq6J No.79865 Reply
bioprocessing and nanoprocessing facilities ensure that each megacity deck is entirely self sufficient. barring contributions from automation, this process requires no imports once sufficient manpower is in place. the only real consumables, fresh air and water, can be rectified using these facilities. the secret to progressing these technologies to the point where we create super materials actually involves a secret that I wouldn't give away here. however even if you knew what to do with nanotechnology to make it past, and into what is beyond it, you would still have to get the source material from somewhere.

existing nanotechnology doesn't print out of thin air, you need a reservoir of atoms to begin stacking. post-nanotechnology uses existing nanotechnology to create radioactive nanotextile catalysts, which are subjected to extremely specific conditions in order to secrete the building blocks for free. yes, you read that right. push a button, print molecularly perfect steel for free. having the secret to this process technology allows a breakaway civilization to happen, because we no longer need to cut down trees for lumber, mine the earth for ore. we can synthesize everything we need.

the cost of doing all of this is 100% meaningless because the process technology in question has already been proofed and there is nothing you can do about it. the team we are looking to build will be able to print composites out of subatomic particles, composites which are non atomic and therefore have literally incalculable properties and which cannot be dissolved. no one else can manufacture these composites, or design them, or build the machines for them,
or get them to print for free using a catalyst. a solar boiler powers the laboratory. the companies that invest on this project will rule the universe. we won't have to ask for financing. we will be able to create shields that can block bullets, beams that can hold entire cities, and if you tried to bring a material sample into a metrology laboratory you'd be saddened to find that imagine equipment to discern the true nature of the material does not exist.

it would be like looking at metal from roswell. non atomic matter that is seemingly weightless but also impenetrable. the more you look at it the wilder it gets. But wait, there's more.
Charles Dartham - Fri, 01 May 2020 22:06:33 EST bTDTgq6J No.79866 Reply
of course we won't get the final MegaCity drawn out without prototypes, and that's actually where the scale-up to the final product comes in: agriculture and livestock. Livestock and agriculture use up unbelievable amounts of land. from global agriculture dot org:
>Livestock is the world's largest user of land resources, with pasture and arable land dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80% of the total agricultural land. One-third of global arable land is used to grow feed, while 26% of the Earth's ice-free terrestrial surface is used for grazing.
animal rights activists have already pointed out that we keep a lot of these animals, billions of them, stacked up on top of each other in cages so small their legs stick out. it's like a homeless pig wearing a cardboard box for clothes, but it's a metal cage, packed tight in an endless hamstrung abyss. if that's how we are going to treat them, like shit, then why can't we take all that bullshit and stack it up on top of itself? we can use both agriculture and livestock to proof the megacity construction process and get it established. the world is already fighting over food, and honestly even pitching this idea to a chinese megafarm corporation would get it built in 10 years.

We can do better than that, under budget and ahead of schedule, where it counts. the same materials science will allow for hypertransport projects such as high speed rail between megacities. as we use less and less roads, we will save lots of land for the biome just from taking the commerce off the land, let alone the people and animals. as the conservation land increases by orders of magnitudes, until the whole nation is a wildlife preserve and we begin creating rainforests in earnest, the job sectors related to conservation will grow exponentially. we will need biologists, wildlife experts, botanists, rangers. withing just a few years, locally, the forrest around the megacity could easily become wild and these habitats will need to be scientifically managed into the future, even passively, in the same way we manage these habitats now.

The first civilian megacity will be called Rome, and it will be shaped like a Starfort. those are my only two conditions as the sole designer & owner of the pseudo-gap nanocatalyst process technology.
Charles Dartham - Fri, 01 May 2020 22:21:34 EST bTDTgq6J No.79867 Reply
science however will not stop with the advent of megacities, instead it will continue into the stars as we map out other elemental systems of power besides solar and electricity, and thermal. we will also explore sonic technology, which is already used in sub micron machine tooling processes, and plasma modulation, which has the potential to take us into a new epoch of transistor and circuit design by transcending the electrical systems we have today for optical plasma based transistors with a gap size and frequency, combined, which approach luminal speeds and in the case of specialized pseudo gap jumping can actually exceed that boundary into superluminal performance (the distance the flame jumps multiplied by the frequency exceeds C). combined with subnanotechnology, these embedded optical circuits could never be reverse engineered or hacked. the computational capabilities of these future systems are science fiction today. tomorrow the exports from the megacities will dominate all commerce. as we expand out into the solar system, having finally breached the technology necessary to do the impossible we will be able to build megacities in space terrariums and leave the earth relatively alone, as the cradle it was meant to be.
Phyllis Nollerridge - Tue, 04 Aug 2020 20:15:00 EST sDPjsjqV No.79930 Reply
We're going to loose the coral reefs and rainforests. Big parts of biodiversity which needed millions of years to come into existence. More people will have to eat insects and lab meat. Food will be more expensive. Poor people, especially in poor countries, will be in trouble, and middle income classes might start revolutions in some countries.
Fanny Wennernane - Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:10:00 EST Qj30vRt6 No.79936 Reply
Insects are a long way off and lab meats are expensive af. I'm thinking a shift to land based aqua culture. There is a cool company I'm following called Aqua Bounty. They have GMO salmon that grow at twice the rate of regular salmon also check out Darling ingredients for agriculture recycling. I think the bugs thing will happen one day but not until shit hits the fan
Molly Piddlewater - Fri, 18 Sep 2020 18:25:55 EST ScoTv5Ei No.79946 Reply
1600467955885.jpg -(90565B / 88.44KB, 612x497) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Gene edit worms to be a single animal body that essentialy is a cow muscle, that tastes and feels closer to a slaughter house regular, or decent grass fed cow.
Ernest Brodgeford - Sat, 19 Sep 2020 22:41:19 EST MCeRuFuA No.79948 Reply
1600569679540.jpg -(743837B / 726.40KB, 1250x1250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
the solution is to live in a small pod and eat bugs

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.