|
Guigui posted:It's a real bummer Carl Sagan isn't still around. He was such a jovial fellow, but man - his command of science and his sheer public charisma would cut denialists down to ribbons. Plus trying to slime carl sagan (as the creationists learned the hard way) was always percieved as a bit like kicking a kitten, oh sure its a lion kitten that can tear your leg from your stump and effortly beat you to death with it, but its so fluffy and likeable it just seems mean!
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
dur posted:A conservative friend of mine posted the same story, only he used a link to Nature. He thinks that because this suggests that it was warmer in the Roman and Medieval periods, that "in layman's terms, global warming is bullshit". To my dumb non-scientist brain, this is a single study to add to the pile of many; we can't use it by itself to really draw a conclusion one way or the other, like my friend really wants to do, and it certainly doesn't invalidate other climate reconstructions or instrumental data. As for science not being certain - that's essentially laypeople trying to be smart because scientists like to be pedantically accurate. No, technically we can't be 100% absolutely guaranteed certain of anything beyond mathematical axioms. But science is far more confident in its evidence-based knowledge of human-caused climate change than your friend imagines. It really boggles the mind that some people still have trouble getting this stuff. Did news reports of the goddamn Northwest Passage opening up not make him think something was up? Is he going to be scoffing at them durned librals when the Maldives are literally underwater?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 08:32
|
|
|
TACD posted:Is he going to be scoffing at them durned librals when the Maldives are literally underwater? He'll probably ask why the Maldives were not underwater when it was warmer 2000 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
TACD posted:OK, so the planet used to be warmer once upon a time. What of it? Nobody has ever tried to claim the earth is warmer now than it has ever been. That doesn't change modern observations and the conclusions that can be drawn. It's a total non-sequitur of an argument. quote:As for science not being certain - that's essentially laypeople trying to be smart because scientists like to be pedantically accurate. No, technically we can't be 100% absolutely guaranteed certain of anything beyond mathematical axioms. But science is far more confident in its evidence-based knowledge of human-caused climate change than your friend imagines. quote:It really boggles the mind that some people still have trouble getting this stuff. Did news reports of the goddamn Northwest Passage opening up not make him think something was up? Is he going to be scoffing at them durned librals when the Maldives are literally underwater?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:This article raises an interesting point. It's about LFTRs but nevermind that for now: http://www.onlinetes.com/tes0712-energy-solutions.aspx I'm guessing this might've been already posted in the thread, but in parallel to capital costs here's a sobering look at the energy investment that would be required for a large-scale infrastructure overhaul (the blog in general is a really good overview of energy and growth by a UCSD physicist) http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
dur posted:A conservative friend of mine posted the same story, only he used a link to Nature. He thinks that because this suggests that it was warmer in the Roman and Medieval periods, that "in layman's terms, global warming is bullshit". To my dumb non-scientist brain, this is a single study to add to the pile of many; we can't use it by itself to really draw a conclusion one way or the other, like my friend really wants to do, and it certainly doesn't invalidate other climate reconstructions or instrumental data. This is the main chart from that paper:  Now, the dotted red line is interesting. They inferred a linear trend which suggests that average temperatures were declining in their period of reconstruction (138bc to 1900ad). After 1900 there is an upturn in the rend, and an a subjective increase in variation. (The parsimonious explanantion for this is that changing the composition of the atmosphere changes its thermodynamic properties and more heat is retained.) Also, 'Roman times' is wonderfully vague, seeing as the Roman Republic and Empire existed for over a thousand years. Around 0-100AD the reconstructed temperatures were higher than today, but the next several centuries were lower. One could more justifiably use that paper to claim that temperatures were lower during 'Roman times'. edit: now that I've had time to properly digest it, that paper is probably best summarised as an examination of one source of proxy data for climate modelling. Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jul 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Bilal X posted:I'm guessing this might've been already posted in the thread, but in parallel to capital costs here's a sobering look at the energy investment that would be required for a large-scale infrastructure overhaul (the blog in general is a really good overview of energy and growth by a UCSD physicist) This was an incredible read, thank you. It really helped illuminate what we're up against for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:The perspective that people need to have fewer kids, as I've argued elsewhere, is very much a first-world liberal (in the bad sense) crypto-racist argument. It assumes that these people secretly want to have fewer kids, that the West can (as usual, again) be the missionaries of an enlightened way of life that we have discovered and wish to spread for the good of the less civilized. Just bein' discursive imperialists, I guess it's what we do best. Everyone everywhere should have fewer children. How about that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Longanimitas posted:Everyone everywhere should have fewer children. How about that? I don't disagree with that particular statement by any stretch. The issue gets complicated when you toss in the reality of the situation: Things like third world economies that still rely on agriculture and the massive amount of children people have an incentive to squirt out in them, religious beliefs that shun birth control, and plain ignorance of proper contraception. To say that all people in all cultures should have fewer children creeps into the borderlands of  bootsraps territory.So I do agree, but there are convincing arguments that simply making that statement isn't the end of the argument. There are factors that not all places are able to get over at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
Not to mention those in the third world consume a fraction of the energy that we do in the first world. It's really hard to point to the third world and pretend like their population is driving any sort of issue when you consider where the carbon in the atmosphere that's driving climate change came from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
TACD posted:
I thought the general hypothesis amongst climate change sceptics was not that the climate wasn't changing, but the level that which humans effect that change? Outside of the sort of totally unthinking "nothing ever changes, god controls the weather" type of person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
TACD posted:OK, so the planet used to be warmer once upon a time. What of it? Nobody has ever tried to claim the earth is warmer now than it has ever been. That doesn't change modern observations and the conclusions that can be drawn. It's a total non-sequitur of an argument. Actually it is quite important. For one thing, every Carbon spike is followed by a same steep drop off that seems to happen from some catalyst event given it's suddenness drop off to the spike. I can't seem to find good information on what was the cause of each of the co2 drop offs in the past. Anyone know any good sources?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Zelthar posted:Actually it is quite important. For one thing, every Carbon spike is followed by a same steep drop off that seems to happen from some catalyst event given it's suddenness drop off to the spike. That's actually a good question and I'm curious about this too. I can't think of a decent way to phrase the question in google such that the results aren't littered with more generalized stuff. My guess would be plants. The drop-off of the CO2 levels looks steep on a chart with 100,000 year increments (or whatever), but really that's thousands or tens of thousands of years, which I suspect is plenty of time for certain ecosystems to start favoring plants that exploit the extra CO2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Not to mention those in the third world consume a fraction of the energy that we do in the first world. It's really hard to point to the third world and pretend like their population is driving any sort of issue when you consider where the carbon in the atmosphere that's driving climate change came from. At the same time, presumably we wish for them to have a higher standard of living and so do they. And that's going to take energy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:At the same time, presumably we wish for them to have a higher standard of living and so do they. And that's going to take energy. And? I don't think you realize the sheer scale of the imablance in energy consumption for places with high birth rates versus the "first" world We're talking orders of magnitude less. There's a lot of room for them to improve their standards of living without consuming as much as the first world, especially the countries heavily dependent on automobiles. The bottom line is it's going to be a lot easier to reduce our own consumption than it will be to lower birth rates in the poorest countries (the ones with the highest birth rates) It's absurd to be concerned about overpopulation when you're consuming as much as we are. The problem is overconsumption, not overpopulation, the statistics make it quite obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
lapse posted:That's actually a good question and I'm curious about this too. I can't think of a decent way to phrase the question in google such that the results aren't littered with more generalized stuff. I can understand he geologic time scale an all but the slope of increase of co2 during those times are equivalent to those of today. So the drop off would be as about as fast as we are climbing today. If it were plants though I would expect to see a lessening of the co2 climb before a neural staged followed by then a more rapid fall. Giving the time required for plant growth to gain the abundance levels to influence. Every chart I see shows great climb followed by a equally as fast fall after "X" date. Nevvy Z posted:At the same time, presumably we wish for them to have a higher standard of living and so do they. And that's going to take energy. Funny thing about increasing the quality of life in 3rd world countries. Since there is no real infrastructure in most places it is a ton easier to start "green" energy programs then it is in a 1st world country. So those places would go from burning woods(worst co2 maker) to cook, eat, and light, to new generation low to none co2 energies. So not only do you save forrest growth, but as well reduce co2 burning. Quality of life also has a huge impact on numbers of children.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Zelthar posted:I can understand he geologic time scale an all but the slope of increase of co2 during those times are equivalent to those of today. So the drop off would be as about as fast as we are climbing today. There's definitely never been anything like the current 2 ppm/year change in CO2 from long-term natural processes, though. The increase following the last deglaciation was around 2 ppm/century:  On a time scale covering the last glacial-interglacial cycles, temperature changes were basically driven by orbital variations, and CO2 concentrations were then affected in part by ocean solubility (cold water holds more CO2) and marine organic matter. If you go back all the way to the entire Cenozoic, it looks like the main drivers were volcanic outgassing and chemical weathering, with rates of about 0.0001 ppm/year (or 100 ppm per million years). Bilal X fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Here's the latest from Bill McKibben (who's as sharp as always), and it ain't pretty:quote:Even if such a campaign is possible, however, we may have waited too long to start it. To make a real difference – to keep us under a temperature increase of two degrees – you'd need to change carbon pricing in Washington, and then use that victory to leverage similar shifts around the world. At this point, what happens in the U.S. is most important for how it will influence China and India, where emissions are growing fastest. (In early June, researchers concluded that China has probably under-reported its emissions by up to 20 percent.) The three numbers I've described are daunting – they may define an essentially impossible future. But at least they provide intellectual clarity about the greatest challenge humans have ever faced. We know how much we can burn, and we know who's planning to burn more. Climate change operates on a geological scale and time frame, but it's not an impersonal force of nature; the more carefully you do the math, the more thoroughly you realize that this is, at bottom, a moral issue; we have met the enemy and they is Shell. We've essentially reached the human civilization version of Donkey Kong's kill screen - there's no more game left, so we might as well just record our high score, put our initials up on the board, and call it done. The small outside chance that remains is a full-scale revolution that completely overthrows the American corporatocracy, which ironically gets more likely as the economy gets worse (there's no doubt that climate change is already having a negative effect on the economy).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:
This is what has driven me farther toward radical environmentalism over the past few years. I think its fairly settled that consumerism is the core problem fueling climate change and other ecological disasters. Trying to fix the problem while maintaining a consumption-focused society is trying to beat a bear to death with a big t-bone steak. Yes, you're making an effort, but its just pissing off the bear and giving it an appetite to boot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
The whole Holocene comment got me thinking about just what kind of effect will our current emissions have on the next glaciation period. A quick google search seems to indicate that the prevailing theory is that we've managed to push back the coming of the next ice age by some time, but that it will come nonetheless. The whole of human civilization sprang into existence after the glaciars receded, and our whole agriculture is based off that fleeting climatic sweetspot (this being one of the reasons why dumping huge ammounts of CO2 into the atmosphere where long-term feedback loops rule is a bad idea). Whether a sizeable human populations exists in the planet or not at the point in the future where the next ice age comes is anybody's guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Honestly, that sort of thing gives me hope. Whether or not our species continues, at least we haven't hosed things up so bad that life on Earth can't continue on as it has for millions of years. Maybe we adapt to what we've done, and maybe we don't. The good news is that life on the planet is going to keep on doing its thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Here's the latest from Bill McKibben (who's as sharp as always), and it ain't pretty: I really really hate people who use weather events and call it climate. Bad science like that is the same reason why we allocate more water then the Colorado river water flows. "When the Colorado River Compact was drafted in the 1920s, it was based on barely thirty years of streamflow records that suggested an average annual flow of 17.5 million acre-feet (21.59 km3) past Lee's Ferry.[195] Modern tree ring studies revealed that those three decades were probably the wettest in the past 500–1,200 years – and that the long-term annual flow past Lee's Ferry is probably closer to 13.5 million acre-feet (16.65 km3).[196][n 7] This has resulted in more water being allocated to river users than actually flows through the Colorado." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River Half rear end your studies and you will just make things worse. Keep in mind even with all those fires, Colorado is also having a bumper crop of pine nuts due to the heat wave. For forest health, fire is doing Colorado a lot of good. New growth is a lot more resistant to bark beetles and new fires are a lot less intense. I'm just saying let's keep doing this right and not spaz over current events until they can be studied in more detail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
He's not using weather events and calling it climate. All he's saying is that the current extreme variations we're seeing, as well as general trends (for example, we've broken an insane number of record highs and very few record lows over past decade or so, where the expected value would be roughly 50/50) are directly related to climate change, which is absolutely true. Did you read any of the stats at the beginning of the article? Also, have you done any research on how climate change affects the jet stream? If not, take a look; I found it really illuminating as well as frightening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:He's not using weather events and calling it climate. All he's saying is that the current extreme variations we're seeing, as well as general trends (for example, we've broken an insane number of record highs and very few record lows over past decade or so, where the expected value would be roughly 50/50) are directly related to climate change, which is absolutely true. Did you read any of the stats at the beginning of the article? Also, have you done any research on how climate change affects the jet stream? If not, take a look; I found it really illuminating as well as frightening. "If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change:" First line in the article. Today's weather = climate change The first half of that article is just fear mongering. That's the problem though, we are breaking 50 to 100 year old records not new records every few years(in general). Given that our records are fairly short to begin with it's not anything to dance about. On top of that, it really makes one look silly pointing that out cause all these record breaking temps this past winter/spring were caused by a cooling trend in the pacific. ( 2nd year La Nina) Science is about explaining to people why things work the way they do. Not scaring the poo poo out of them because they are being retarded imbeciles. But... Like you said about Jet streams, we really need to focus more energy on how the earth moves heat around (weather). We are still extremely piss poor at it. Are the Hadley cells being effected? 30 degrees no longer the desert standard? Jet stream changes? These are all linked. Any change to the top (Hadley cell) causes bigger changes lower on the scale(our weather).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
During the dust bowl years of the 1930's we in the US had the benefit of FDR and his cripple-rear end solid steel balls to get things like the Great Plains Shelterbelt built. These days we're just hosed. Hope bootstraps hold soil down as well as a few million windbreak trees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
Surprised I didn't see this posted here. A World without Coral Reefs with a bit of commentary by Peter Watts that turns up the vitriol to perhaps a more proportionate level. quote:Take Roger Bradbury very seriously. He’s no crank: coral reef specialist, heavy background in mathematical ecology, published repeatedly in Science. Chief and director of more scientific panels than you could roll a raccoon over. So when he says the coral reef ecosystem is already effectively extinct — not the Florida Keys, not the Great Barrier Reef, but the whole global system of tropical reefs everywhere; not just at risk or imperiled or endangered, but loving dead already, running brain-dead and galvanic for a few more years on nothing but sheer unsustainable inertia — you’d better listen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:03
|
|
|
RubberJohnny posted:
Who should pay and how?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
If there were no Global Warming - we would still be in an Ice Age. Humans didn't cause any of the previous thaws - guaranteed. I agree, global warming is a natural occurance. As the living creatures on Earth increases/explodes, more water is released from ice-deposit regions due to warm Earth. If worldwide people do not burn fuel, wood and other substance the Earth will return back to ice-age. Everyday millions of barrel of oil/petrol is burned, millions of Tons of coal is burned, millions of Tons of wood is burned, millions of Tons of cooking and industrial gas is burned. Think, if millions of Tons of these "fire products/substance" is not burned what would be the temperature of Earth. There must be Volcanic activity under the Glaciers and Ice-deposit regions of the world because of which world ice is melting. Heat from big cities cannot travel more than 20 miles or 30 miles. Forget big cities heat reaching Antartica, Siberia, Alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the world. Global warming is limited/trapped/exists in big cities only. Camp 15 miles outside a big city and you will shiver in the middle of the night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
God bless those brave coal power plant owners for keeping the new ice age at bay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
RichFears posted:If there were no Global Warming - we would still be in an Ice Age. Humans didn't cause any of the previous thaws - guaranteed. What would be Temperture of Earth. Six? No.... ..... Seven. Think. Think about it. If you Disagree, you are not Thinking about it. I've done some reading here and as a drinker of water can claim some authority on the Subject. #wow #woah #horyshit #germanos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24pOo5htg9E
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
global warming not human caused confirmed by top obama advisors water fluoridation leads to evolutionary distension corroborated by top scientists disbarred from publication in academic towers fema dysgenics worldwide climate change the pictures they don't want you to see polar bear families frolicking and evolving into humans under our noses??? what is mom's weird trick that drives dentists crazy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Who should pay and how? I think making polluting companies account for fixing the damage they do would be a great start. The same could be said of the average citizen who uses fossil fuels later down the road. But I can hear the butthurt over this from light years away. RichFears posted:If worldwide people do not burn fuel, wood and other substance the Earth will return back to ice-age. Everyday millions of barrel of oil/petrol is burned, millions of Tons of coal is burned, millions of Tons of wood is burned, millions of Tons of cooking and industrial gas is burned. Think, if millions of Tons of these "fire products/substance" is not burned what would be the temperature of Earth.    If this isn't a low-effort troll, then Freep has sprung a leak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:I think making polluting companies account for fixing the damage they do would be a great start. The same could be said of the average citizen who uses fossil fuels later down the road. But I can hear the butthurt over this from light years away. Do you just punish the west or do you go tell the people in the developing world that since a bunch of idiots in America and Europe used cars and coal too much they can't use gas powered vehicles or coal power plants to try an claw their way out of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
Narbo posted:God bless those brave coal power plant owners for keeping the new ice age at bay. Actually, the blame for this one falls squarely on the shoulders of the environmentalist knee-jerk movement against nuclear power. They've done more to ensure the dominance of coal than any amount of advertising by the companies that build them could ever have accomplished. Consider that to your average person on the street, nuclear power is a scary thing, and is automatically considered equivalent to things like Chernobyl. Any reactor accident is also going to be a nuclear explosion Just Like Chernobyl because that's what happens on TV and in movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Do you just punish the west or do you go tell the people in the developing world that since a bunch of idiots in America and Europe used cars and coal too much they can't use gas powered vehicles or coal power plants to try an claw their way out of poverty. We nationalize our grid here and perfect modular public works nuclear projects. Then we sell/give the technology to everyone else like a global Marshall plan. Cheap electricity for all!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Do you just punish the west or do you go tell the people in the developing world that since a bunch of idiots in America and Europe used cars and coal too much they can't use gas powered vehicles or coal power plants to try an claw their way out of poverty. Do we want to solve the problem, or not solve it because we aren't willing to grow undeveloped areas in a way that won't make the problem worse? Saying this is the biggest problem our society has ever faced, but then saying "it's too inconvenient to do anything of any real consequence, so gently caress it" wont fix it. Its both the developing and industrialized worlds that have to make changes. No region is going to get a free pass on the effects of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
The point is you have to convince them to change, and good luck doing that from the developed world that has exploited all of the benefits of fossil fuels. Only massive outreach focused on modernizing the developed world would work, and we can't even feed all the people in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Actually, the blame for this one falls squarely on the shoulders of the environmentalist knee-jerk movement against nuclear power. They've done more to ensure the dominance of coal than any amount of advertising by the companies that build them could ever have accomplished. I don't know if we can really place a lot of the fear of nuclear power on environmentalists. Power Plant meltdowns incur a shitload of public fear, backlash, and NIMBY attitude even without environmentalists. Even though they aren't helping with regards to nuclear power I definitely wouldn't say they've done more for coal than coal has. And the environmentalists are not responsible for the atomz scare in the media/movies, that's plain old sensationalism/selling news.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The point is you have to convince them to change, and good luck doing that from the developed world that has exploited all of the benefits of fossil fuels. Only massive outreach focused on modernizing the developed world would work, and we can't even feed all the people in Africa. I agree convincing them to change isn't feasible when we can't do it ourselves. The point is to start somewhere rather than just hand-sitting because some country, industry, or lobby might be offended. You don't stay in a burning building just because it's cold outside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
And there's plenty of oil $$$ out there to encourage the atoms = bombs mentality. The only nuclear policy most politicians have involves getting rid of weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 01:20
|
|