SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.
Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.
Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".
[...] After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.
The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.
Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and clear.
"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.
"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."
The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.
Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.
We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:16PM (14 children)
I shoulda been more careful about clicking that link. Don't get too crazy, there isn't much point in debating whether we live in a simulation or not. What does that change about your daily life? If everything is an illusion except you then that is a recipe for sociopath/psycho behavior. If everything is an illusion but other people are real inside the simulation then you still want to treat the illusion like reality.
It doesn't matter either way, you should still be a decent human being. Even proving we live in a simulation would do nothing unless you can somehow break out of it. The whole concept is just a useless mind-fuck like Inception or The Matrix. Interesting but not worth basing your life around.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:28PM (13 children)
There is no simulation. But atheists are more amenable to evidence suggesting there is a simulation, than the actual reality behind it. And once you see the evidence, you can not un-see it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:28PM (11 children)
Just for the record, I'm an atheist, quite hard-core as atheists go, and I think the idea that we live in, that is "we are a", simulation, is both both entirely ridiculous and roundly hilarious. For one thing, as there is no evidence at all, it's impossible to be "amenable" to it. For another, there's no indication at all that a system able to support such a simulation is practical, not only using any technology we have, but also any technology we can extrapolate to, no matter how far we go ahead using what we know.
The simulation idea isn't quite as ridiculous as the various "god" ideas, as it actually might be just possible (although never practical) with "unknown science", but it's very close, as it shares all of these characteristics: no evidence, no supporting science, untestable, no tenable excuse for the broken results of either the "godly creation" or the "simulation", and of no practical value whatsoever outside of trying to influence behavior via a nice smelly dose of bullshit.
But hey. Keep on pointing at atheists. I guess it lights your fire somehow?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:53PM (5 children)
I call bullshit on this. Have you seen the level of detail and complexity of *our* video games, *today*? How much of the world around you really needs to be simulated, and in how much detail, for it to be believable?
There certainly doesn't need to be a simulation of every particle in the universe, as some assume to be the only possible way such a simulation could be implemented. Really, only those objects observed need be simulated accurately, and even then only in as much detail as is required to fool the observer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:06PM (3 children)
That is because you are easily wowed and have zero concept about the limitations behind *our* video games. To simulate a universe where the people inside can verify "physical reality" with a variety of experiments would be insanely hard. It goes way beyond just simulating reality at the Large Hadron Collider. You are trying to say it is possible, and no one yet has said it isn't.
Just not practical. Why invest all the money and effort into simulating reality? Why do it without the inhabitant's knowledge? Probably easier to dump a bunch of humanoids on a planet. So again, sure it may be possible but it is so ridiculous and impractical that it makes no sense. Why bother wasting your energy on the idea? Give the idea a spin, enjoy the mental games, then let it go unless it somehow becomes more relevant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:45AM
I'll say it's not possible then. The data storage requirements would be physically prohibitive. You would need less matter to actually make this universe than to store every particle in it's state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:36AM (1 child)
The thing with a simulation is that while simulating our universe within our universe seems impossible, we don't know anything about the universe that's running the simulation. It could be that other universe operates under entirely different physics, making things possible that would impossible in our universe, and in comparison our universe is actually very simple and thus easy to simulate. And we'd have no idea because this universe is all we know.
To use the video game analogy, the video game characters would only know the in-game universe, and wouldn't know anything about the universe that's running their simulation (game) and what's possible in our universe. For example, to run a simulation you'd need a computer - a CPU, some kind of storage, and something like electricity to make it go. I don't know any game engines that support the physics do something like that at any kind of scale, and such concepts would be completely alien to the characters in the game. Even for game engines where an intelligent in-game character could create a very rudimentary computer such as Minecraft, said character might realize that theoretically one could build a computer to run Minecraft out of redstone in their universe, but would logically conclude that would be completely impractical to do so and thus "impossible".
That's not to say I believe that our universe is a simulation, but like trying to prove there's no God, there's really no way to completely disprove it.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:39PM
IOW, it's all made-up nonsense. No science, no evidence, nothing. Pretty much just like any other religion. That was my point.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:49PM
And there is the explanation why the Universe expands and the expansion is accelerated: the observation power of humanity increases and more needs to be eliminated from the observable field to keep up the veracity of the simulation within the same computation power.
This is also why the gyroscopes of the Hubble telescope are failing - stopgap solution for those running the simulation to slow down the increase computation complexity - but be prepared for a jolt in the acceleration of Universe expansion with the launch of James Webb telescope.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)
The no evidence part is where I think you are wrong. (And I don't mean for a simulation, rather for a powerful delusion.) Testable? No. Because of the same problems you are going to run into if it was a simulation. But you can establish that something is off. So take a look.
What is Winter Sunlight?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:11AM (2 children)
Evidence which is impossible to test? How about you come up with something that isn't dumb?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:51AM (1 child)
What is Winter Sunlight?
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:38AM
A yellow-colored cleaner suitable for smearing smudges on glass. Glad I could help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:51AM
And free will does not exist. There is nothing you can do but sit back and enjoy the ride
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:23AM
Wake me up when hacker tools are available.