|
Vermain posted:Here's what you can do to prepare: Don't be scared shitless. It helps to have the perspective that having no health insurance or easy access to food without resorting to straight-up robbery is a daily occurrence for large swathes of the "developed" world, and is the norm in the "developing" world. The only thing I can add to this is to learn the basic skills you need to get by in case society ever does go to poo poo, and be capable of teaching these skills to others. This is not necessarily becoming a survivalist or withdrawing, since both routes would leave you isolated without a community to depend on for the support we all need to live. Plus, even as a misanthrope, I think life without other people would be intolerable for any amount of time beyond a week. Basic skills people used to have before we were so dependent on what our current society offers is what I mean. This book and others like it are a great reference to have around the house anyway, and if you're at least familiar with the skills needed for self-sufficiency, you're leaps and bounds beyond the overwhelming majority of the population when something as minor as a power failure occurs. Even having that information physically available to look up if it is needed would be better than nothing. Actually using these skills in your daily life before they are necessary would be great to help buffer yourself against the consequences and ease your own transition. Anyone who tells you to buy a plot of land out in the sticks, build a house in a shipping container underground, and stockpile guns has been watching too much Doomsday Preppers and/or Red Dawn. It's knowledge and community that will help people get through, not masturbating about fantasies of anarchy over crates of surplus ammunition and MREs. These folks would still depend on society just as much as everyone else if you take away their stockpiles, so at best they would be delaying the inevitable only until the last can of Beanie Weenies runs out. All the lovely tactical AR-15 attachments in the world won't keep you from starving if you think food comes from the grocery store. Rebuilding functional communities that can support themselves and each other will be the only way to pull through the outright collapse some folks are afraid of. TheFuglyStik fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Nov 27, 2012 |
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
As a counterpart to TACD's gloomy New Scientist article, here's a new NYTimes article on the potential benefits of global warming. I'll summarize below:quote:1. Plants grow faster with higher nighttime temperatures, but because domesticated strains are not selected for on the basis of CO2 absorption the hope is that “that nature in the wild will select much faster for CO2.” Also, many related emissions are not helpful for plants. As TACD's article points out, even if plants do grow faster because of higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels, this is more than counterbalanced by the increased chance of drought, wildfires and other extreme weather events. Clicking through some of the linked articles reminded me that back in 2008, scientists were already saying that we were at the critical point, where we needed to take drastic action to stay below 2c. Four years later, and the fact that we are on track to surpass 4c unless (again) drastic action is taken is not making news. And the scariest part is that these climate models do not take into account many possible feedback loops such as melting tundra and burning peat. When the scientific argument is between those who believe we have a chance to stay below 4c if we take radical steps immediately and those who believe that the models are much too conservative and we're on track for upwards of 10c, while the public argument is between those who believe that global warming is a hoax and those who think that buying a Prius and using recyclable grocery bags will make things better, it's hard to see a way out. Apologies for being all doom-and-gloom, I don't get the chance to talk about this much in real life. After all, it's not a fun conversation no matter what you believe. I'm not pessimistic by nature but I think we had our chance to avert this crisis four years ago, but the financial crisis happened at exactly the wrong time and made taxes on carbon unpalatable and increased investment in cheap energy the way to go. We blew it and now we'll have to wait and see if the models are accurate (massive extinctions, human suffering, etc) or conservative (everyone is dead). The worst part (well, not really) is silencing that little "I told you so" voice that's been popping up more and more often. This is too big for that :\
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Anyone who tells you to buy a plot of land out in the sticks, build a house in a shipping container underground, and stockpile guns has been watching too much Doomsday Preppers and/or Red Dawn. It's knowledge and community that will help people get through, not masturbating about fantasies of anarchy over crates of surplus ammunition and MREs. These folks would still depend on society just as much as everyone else if you take away their stockpiles, so at best they would be delaying the inevitable only until the last can of Beanie Weenies runs out. All the lovely tactical AR-15 attachments in the world won't keep you from starving if you think food comes from the grocery store. I think the problem of these types will solve itself. They'd almost certainly rather die than live in a society that doesn't grant them everything they wish at the drop of a hat. And they will die, either of bad luck with bacteria or bad genetics or bad karma when it comes to windpipes and food, and then their bunkers will be scavenged by either the people of society they spent their life trying to avoid, or roving bandits who believe in the same self-sufficiency myth but predicate it more on mobility than ensconcement. I think the plains are in a drought they may never exit and food prices are lower than they will ever be again, barring turning Detroit into the biggest hydroponics operation humanity has ever attempted. I don't doubt that on a basic level humanity can out-engineer most of the effects of the shifting climate in order to survive. Not beat climate change, not mitigate the geographic changes that will happen as a result of sea levels rising or stave off the encroaching desertification of the middle latitudes, but in our ability to house people in densities that could fit 6 billion people into an Arizona-sized area with a few thousand square miles to spare. That's at Paris-level population density. Shoot for something like Calcutta or Manila and you reduce that space by roughly a third, or half, respectively. Seeing as though habitable land area will remain much larger than these figures the infrastructure required to scale Paris up to Arizona's land area will not be needed for some time. I am positive that we won't be able to mitigate our impact in any significant manner. This process simply won't provide a Pearl Harbor type moment where everyone is forced to grasp the magnitude of the situation. If the fact that New York was hit by a hurricane one week and a loving snowstorm the next did not serve as that kind of moment, there won't be anything that will snap the right people out of their reverie. There are people that believe this poo poo is not happening for a variety of reasons and many of them cannot be reasoned with and many of them are in places where they can and do willfully prevent action. It is for this reason I don't think we'll ever manage to escape the worst-case scenarios. Too many people holding too many levers are gladly ensuring inaction. Ongoing drought will just be a fluke, regular Sandy-esque flooding of the East Coast will just be a cycle (a really long one that's too big for data to pick up  ) so on and so forth. As the Midwest undergoes increasingly rapid desertification, they'll point to the Dust Bowl as proof that it's not permanent. When the storm surge simply does not retreat from the Chesapeake, they'll point at the Netherlands for proof we can raise the capitol from the sea. Our ability to react outstrips our ability and willingness to prepare, it's as simple as that. We'll think we've got everything beaten until we don't and then we'll be truly hosed. Crop yields are running as much as 60-70% behind normal in some parts of the Midwest, and it's only going to worsen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
More data, less The Walking Dead discussion. Here's an utterly depressing report on the thawing permafrost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Anyone who tells you to buy a plot of land out in the sticks, build a house in a shipping container underground, and stockpile guns has been watching too much Doomsday Preppers and/or Red Dawn. It's knowledge and community that will help people get through, not masturbating about fantasies of anarchy over crates of surplus ammunition and MREs. These folks would still depend on society just as much as everyone else if you take away their stockpiles, so at best they would be delaying the inevitable only until the last can of Beanie Weenies runs out. All the lovely tactical AR-15 attachments in the world won't keep you from starving if you think food comes from the grocery store. I agree with the general sentiment, but if this is your general line of thinking, you probably don't want to be in a major urban area. Food don't come from grocery stores, but it don't come from suburban gardens and raised beds in torn up parking lots either, unless you're using pretty significant water and fossil fuel inputs. Major urban agglomerations are probably going to be nasty places to be in an energy-restricted world that relies on local community for food production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I agree with the general sentiment, but if this is your general line of thinking, you probably don't want to be in a major urban area. Food don't come from grocery stores, but it don't come from suburban gardens and raised beds in torn up parking lots either, unless you're using pretty significant water and fossil fuel inputs. Major urban agglomerations are probably going to be nasty places to be in an energy-restricted world that relies on local community for food production. In 1943 Victory Garden type urban and suburban gardening produced 8 million tons of vegetables and fruits, or, approximately enough to cover the produce eaten by 20 million persons in a year. It's not going to be enough to feed a major metro area, but in addition to the propaganda value, it was intended as a supplement, and it did a pretty good job at that. tatankatonk fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
If you're looking for models of what this might be like for the USA and UK, both in terms of major disruptions to food supply and radical restriction in fossil fuel usage, rationing in the UK during the Second World War might be a good model. In which case, you're talking about things like "raffling off an onion for charity" and "Boy Scouts and Girl Guides going around collecting apples and any citrus fruits to be donated to pregnant women and young children" My uncle, born in 1938, didn't see a grape until 1955. He rmembers the first time he ate a banana, and still talks about it fondly. He was from Glasgow, pretty much your model for deprived lovely urban center. An aunt of mine grew up in Soviet-occupied Austria. She would scream at us for peeling away too much of the apple, or for cutting away brown spots when we were helping her make pies. When you're doing rationing, a garden is plain drat common sense, even if all you have is a windowbox to grow parsley, peppers, and a few tomatoes. tatankatonk fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:In 1943 Victory Garden type urban and suburban gardening produced 8 million tons of vegetables and fruits, or, approximately enough to cover the produce eaten by 20 million persons in a year. Victory gardens are a nice model if you have decent soil in your urban areas, have plentiful water, and don't mind nutrient-stripping surrounding areas. Most urban areas globally don't look much like American ones circa '43, though, and many of them are going to have real problems with water supply, nutrient supply, etc due to the climate issues being discussed in this thread. My point is just that if you're currently living on a slab of concrete and you believe you're going to need to rely on your local community for food production, relocation might make sense depending on your circumstances. IMO a better model for all of this is Cuba's shift to organic ag during the Special Period, but Cuba doesn't have anything like the urban densities present in other places, and my guess is that if they had to feed a NYC they wouldn't have done very well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
The best place I can think of to wind up would be a mixed dairy farm and orchard outside like, Traverse City. Or Oregon or Washington?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Victory gardens are a nice model if you have decent soil in your urban areas, have plentiful water, and don't mind nutrient-stripping surrounding areas. Most urban areas globally don't look much like American ones circa '43, though, and many of them are going to have real problems with water supply, nutrient supply, etc due to the climate issues being discussed in this thread. My point is just that if you're currently living on a slab of concrete and you believe you're going to need to rely on your local community for food production, relocation might make sense depending on your circumstances. IMO a better model for all of this is Cuba's shift to organic ag during the Special Period, but Cuba doesn't have anything like the urban densities present in other places, and my guess is that if they had to feed a NYC they wouldn't have done very well. The urban core of the two major midwestern cities I'm familiar with looks structurally pretty well like it did in the 1940s, and the major departure from the previous method of urban growth is of course car-driven development out in the suburbs, and knocking freeways through the middle, but I see what you mean it's going to depend on your city. In terms of garden production, some of the fertilizer and water problems that are going to come up people are going to deal with by stretching composting, rainbarelling, and grey water as far as they'll go. For the long-distance transport of staple goods, if we're imagining major rationing of fossil fuels ... well ... rail is cheap and efficient. Bulk sea transport and barges are cheap and efficient. Assuming we avoid total social collapse and the Lord Humongous zone, I think it'll still be possible to transport staple foods to NYC, assuming that surplus food exists somewhere else to ship. You sound like you know a lot about this, can you tell me more about Cuba's shift to organic ag? tatankatonk fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:You sound like you know a lot about this, can you tell me more about Cuba's shift to organic ag? This is a pretty reasonable overview: http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture In short, when Cuba lost Soviet imports in the 90s, they made a crash-transition to local, intensive organic agriculture that included an urban ag component. I probably shouldn't refer to this as a 'model', because I don't think it's generically applicable in some abstract way, but it is an example demonstrating the possibility of rapidly moving away from industrial agriculture to something more resilient, with very constrained resources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:This is a pretty reasonable overview: http://monthlyreview.org/2012/01/01/the-paradox-of-cuban-agriculture I think such a transition in such a short period of time could also only happen where there is a strong central authority to force those changes, such as in Cuba. People threw a fit over getting rid of 100W incandescent bulbs at the federal level. It's a safe bet that forcing agriculture into more sustainable methods at the federal level would toss that same group into a collective hysteria. There's a large portion of the US that would rather starve (or so they would claim until they had no other choice) than give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:There's a large portion of the US that would rather starve (or so they would claim until they had no other choice) than give it a shot. Maybe all those absurd secession petitions that followed the election could come in handy after all... Kidding aside, I'm not sure how many of the big environmental/sustainability concerns can be adequately addressed at the federal level. I think we can learn a larger lesson about centralization and specialization from this catastrophe we are facing - namely, that there is definitely a point of diminishing returns for both. Look at how a set of small, self-sufficient communities behaves. If one self-sufficient community runs into trouble, "the system" can have a quick and easy recovery. On the other hand, high levels of centralization, specialization, and hierarchy mean that a problem in a comparatively small part of the society can leave the whole system irreparably hosed. When everything is going good and looking up, centralized, specialized systems are indeed more "efficient." The same does not hold true when things are going wrong. Nonspecialized, noncentralized systems are much more durable and adaptable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
From Reuters:quote:"Global warming has not slowed down, (nor is it) lagging behind the projections," said Stefan Rahmstorf, lead author at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that compared U.N. projections to what has actually happened from the early 1990s to 2011. Goodbye you lizard scum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:I think such a transition in such a short period of time could also only happen where there is a strong central authority to force those changes, such as in Cuba. People threw a fit over getting rid of 100W incandescent bulbs at the federal level. It's a safe bet that forcing agriculture into more sustainable methods at the federal level would toss that same group into a collective hysteria. There's a large portion of the US that would rather starve (or so they would claim until they had no other choice) than give it a shot. I basically agree and I don't think those kinds of changes could be meaningfully implemented on a federal level in a country the size of the US anyway- what's appropriate for one state isn't likely to be appropriate for another on the other side of the country. There's also the issue that federal/national governments are normally where the lobbying influence of fossil fuel manufacturers, agrochemical corps, etc lies, so that's another issue. I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know whether its plausible that people could get together at a county/state level to try to implement these kinds of things. Anyway, that's why I eschewed the term 'model', as Cuba's a very different place and the 90s were very different times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I basically agree and I don't think those kinds of changes could be meaningfully implemented on a federal level in a country the size of the US anyway- what's appropriate for one state isn't likely to be appropriate for another on the other side of the country. There's also the issue that federal/national governments are normally where the lobbying influence of fossil fuel manufacturers, agrochemical corps, etc lies, so that's another issue. I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know whether its plausible that people could get together at a county/state level to try to implement these kinds of things. Anyway, that's why I eschewed the term 'model', as Cuba's a very different place and the 90s were very different times. I've seen it happen voluntarily at the urging of state ag extension offices at the county level, primarily targeted toward new and younger farmers who aren't growing strictly for commodity markets. But I will grant that its a minuscule fraction of the agriculture in my area. Toss in the paperwork hell that comes with it and few established farms are willing to play along. So yes it can be done theoretically, but a lot of demographic and policy changes need to happen in the background first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I basically agree and I don't think those kinds of changes could be meaningfully implemented on a federal level in a country the size of the US anyway- what's appropriate for one state isn't likely to be appropriate for another on the other side of the country. There's also the issue that federal/national governments are normally where the lobbying influence of fossil fuel manufacturers, agrochemical corps, etc lies, so that's another issue. I'm not familiar enough with American politics to know whether its plausible that people could get together at a county/state level to try to implement these kinds of things. Anyway, that's why I eschewed the term 'model', as Cuba's a very different place and the 90s were very different times. The lobbying influence is present on every level. Here in Wisconsin the legislature is aggressively pursuing relaxation of mining regulations at the behest of, you guessed it, mining companies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
At this point, death is getting to be pretty certain. Maybe instead of trying to bootstrap the climate, we should bootstrap ourselves. That is to say, perhaps we should focus on engineering future humans to withstand the effects of climate change - less food, less water, more tolerance to extreme weather fluctuations and pestilence. Clearly poo poo isn't getting done or going to get done on the political front, which means climate change is irreversible short of mass, concerted revolution (which itself is highly unlikely). And we ain't getting off this rock anytime soon. What other option do we have?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:That is to say, perhaps we should focus on engineering future humans to withstand the effects of climate change - less food, less water, more tolerance to extreme weather fluctuations and pestilence. We, ah, dont really have time to do that.  Re-engineering humans isnt a 20 year plan, its a 200 year plan. I like the spaceship option myself, no less plausible, and I get to hang out with G'Kar or Quark or something. Or probably loving captain archer 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
While the global, yearly average temperature might rise 4C or 6C, this says nothing about how much hotter summers will be. We already know that excessive heat has a negative effect on the brain. What if summer temperatures in the tropic and temperate zones get so hot that it drives humans insane, no matter how much water they drink? What if summers get so hot that humans cannot survive above ground?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Then the remaining people will dig and come out at night, unless that also is not an option for survival. Ugly all around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
Prettz posted:While the global, yearly average temperature might rise 4C or 6C, this says nothing about how much hotter summers will be. We already know that excessive heat has a negative effect on the brain. What if summer temperatures in the tropic and temperate zones get so hot that it drives humans insane, no matter how much water they drink? What if summers get so hot that humans cannot survive above ground? If the summers are so hot that hairless, sweating humans with the means to store water can't cope, the ecosystem that supports us is going to be more hosed to such a degree that we won't be worrying about people being driven insane from heatstroke. They'll have starved long before then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
I imagine in wealthy countries at least you'll see subterranean farms at some point if things get dire enough with temps and crop fertilizing issues (assuming there are institutions in place that could dig them). The deeper you go the cooler, and with skylights and mirrors you could probably distribute sunlight, supplement with electrical light as needed and control the temperature more easily. Edit: Or more likely just indoor farming with AC. gently caress the atmosphere! Yiggy fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
The Groper posted:If the summers are so hot that hairless, sweating humans with the means to store water can't cope, the ecosystem that supports us is going to be more hosed to such a degree that we won't be worrying about people being driven insane from heatstroke. They'll have starved long before then. edit: OK, I guess I veered into heatstroke territory in the last sentence. Prettz fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
I've already written off this biosphere and now I'm interested in how our species will adapt to societal instability and climactic chaos. We're tremendously capable and have access to mind boggling technologies and I think we may even have a chance of surviving climate change. If nothing else, it will be quite the ride out and we'll have a front row seat for a good portion of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Time to plant more white daisies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Plants would grow faster with more Co2, yes, but the nutrient density (or even total amount of nutrients in the plant matter) would actually be lower. So you'll need twice as much land to get the same amount of nutrition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Plants would grow faster with more Co2, yes, but the nutrient density (or even total amount of nutrients in the plant matter) would actually be lower. So you'll need twice as much land to get the same amount of nutrition. Either less nutrient density or higher soil-rape density. Sadly, there are no free lunches in nature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
Caselogic.com posted:I've already written off this biosphere and now I'm interested in how our species will adapt to societal instability and climactic chaos. We're tremendously capable and have access to mind boggling technologies and I think we may even have a chance of surviving climate change. If nothing else, it will be quite the ride out and we'll have a front row seat for a good portion of it. Well I just had bits of the neighbors house in my backyard again after whats shaping up to be yet another year of completely bonkers australian climate-change summer. Perths supposed to be one of the most pleasant climates on earth. Yeah, that was then this is now. It'll be quite the ride, but its not going to be in the luxury seats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
So considering it's all over what's the best way to go out? Alcohol poisoning or jumping from a plane? This may seem stupid but I'm losing sleep over this and I can't really think of anything good coming from this. As much as I would love to have children I would feel like a right good prick for letting them inherit this dead world. EDIT: vvv Haha, I like you. Spudd fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 12:25
|
|
Spudd posted:So considering it's all over what's the best way to go out? Alcohol poisoning or jumping from a plane? This may seem stupid but I'm losing sleep over this and I can't really think of anything good coming from this. As much as I would love to have children I would feel like a right good prick for letting them inherit this dead world. In your case, I'd say 80 hour video game and Let's Play session, straight.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 13:31
|
|
|
Trying to steer us off course of all this doom and gloom, I have a potentially silly question. I've been reading about how our CO2 emissions have been going down (which may be too little too late from what I'm reading) due to fracking or hydraulic fracturing. But after snooping around I've found articles that say the Methane released into the environment more than makes up for this drop in CO2 emissions, but a lot of people are putting that study into question. Granted I read that in the wikipedia article on fracking, so my knowledge is limited. Then there's all the other environmental problems that supposedly come from fracking (which I'm not really familiar with, some reading would be helpful here). So I guess my question is, is the benefit in reduced Co2 emissions from fracking a net positive or negative? Will it help curb the greenhouse effect and prevent climate change, or make it worse? seniorservice fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
Fracking is a technique for fracturing rock formations using hydro pressure so that you can then extract the fossil fuels that were encased in the rock. As a mineral extraction technique it has opened up tons of shale fields in recent years, not to mention the boom it has created in natural gas. The only way you can say that fracking reduces CO2 emissions is by the increase in natural gas use in lieu of coal. But, it's still extracting and burning a fossil fuel and releasing CO2. Not to mention that the balance of hydrocarbons produced by fracking isn't going to be just natural gas, this shale boom is going to be a big deal. Essentially fracking technology is the foot pushing down on the accelerator of CO2 emissions to make sure we're getting all the juice out of the tank. It's ultimately not a good thing. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
seniorservice posted:Trying to steer us off course of all this doom and gloom, I have a potentially silly question. Looking for emissions reductions from alternate fossil fuel production methods is like an alcoholic trying to kick the habit by switching from bourbon to wine. Even granting that fracking is cleaner than other production methods (which is probably untrue if you factor in groundwater effects and so on), what matters is consumption, not production. If we want a planet that's capable of supporting human life on anything like the scale that it currently does, we need to stop burning fossil fuels entirely within the next couple of decades. Slightly-cleaner production methods aren't going to help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
This seems like the right place to ask about this... A co-worker, who is convinced that global warming isn't caused by human CO2 emissions, sent me the following link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-prove-it.html Yes, I know it's the Daily Mail and was clearly written by someone who doesn't want climate change to be human-caused (and seems to blame the money-grubbing 'green' industry for making his bills higher), but I also assume the story isn't entirely fabricated. So what exactly does it mean? Is this 'chart' reliable? Has there been no aggregate warming for 16 years? If yes, what exactly is 'aggregate warming'? Does it take ocean temperatures etc into account? Most importantly: does the data really suggest that the models being used to predict climate change are flawed and it's really not as bad as we think it is? I'm not coming here to say Global Warming isn't happening, so please don't ban me. I'm here because I'm no expert and would like some answers with which to respond to my co-worker. Soul Reaver fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:This seems like the right place to ask about this... That article was already posted in this thread and the next ten or so posts are basically talking about why it's full of poo poo. Here's the basic rundown: -They cherry picked data -They're obvious biased -At the very end of the article, they even admit the headline is a lie and global warming is real If there's still something you don't understand based on those posts/links, post your specific points of confusion or whatever dumb denialist crap your co-worker is spewing and I'm sure someone will post a more detailed refutation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Or, you could mock him by saying "Man, like, we knew that CO2 increased earth's temperature back since the late 80's. You're not still stuck in the early 80's, are you?" Then, if he shows you more articles, just start singing some classic 80's rock songs. Encourage him to sing with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Guigui posted:Or, you could mock him by saying "Man, like, we knew that CO2 increased earth's temperature back since the late 80's. You're not still stuck in the early 80's, are you?" Uhhh, people like him are stuck even further back than that. John Tyndall documented that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 1800s, and theorized that the Earth would freeze without such gases. Svante Arrhenius was the first to suggest that humans would increase the temperature of the planet by releasing CO2 from fossil fuel combustion back in 1895. The big difference between then and the late 1900's was that we didn't have the data back then to show that it was actually happening, and now we do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:That article was already posted in this thread and the next ten or so posts are basically talking about why it's full of poo poo. Thanks for the link to the refutation, was very informative regarding the basic errors being made. Sorry for bringing it up again - the thread was pretty dense and I didn't see it in the last few pages so I didn't realize it had been posted earlier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:Thanks for the link to the refutation, was very informative regarding the basic errors being made. Sorry for bringing it up again - the thread was pretty dense and I didn't see it in the last few pages so I didn't realize it had been posted earlier. Remember for any climate change arguments skepticalscience.com is a great resource
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 07:47
|
|