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


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

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"

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