|
Quantum Mechanic posted:US Carbon Emissions at Lowest Level since '94 How much of that is due to offshoring practices? If whithin the same period imports from China have gone up, then this number is meaningless.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
A quick googling seems to indicate that there's a sizable group of scientists (I'll not use "consensus") that believe gas/magma ejections from the Siberian traps caused the Permian extinction, via global warming and ozone layer depletion. Also, the volcanism happened over a period of 200,000 - 800,000 years, so it's not a one-off fast event (like the Cretaceous extinction, which was the subject of probably the coolest paper I've ever found accidentally).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:How much of that is due to offshoring practices? If whithin the same period imports from China have gone up, then this number is meaningless. Unfortunately I think most of it is to do with the US recession. Also, the new head of the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) Solar Thermal Research Initiative has come out saying that Solar Thermal could be half the price by 2020. quote:Solar power cost could be halved by 2020
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 13:29
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
This Jacket Is Me posted:A quick googling seems to indicate that there's a sizable group of scientists (I'll not use "consensus") that believe gas/magma ejections from the Siberian traps caused the Permian extinction, via global warming and ozone layer depletion. Also, the volcanism happened over a period of 200,000 - 800,000 years, so it's not a one-off fast event (like the Cretaceous extinction, which was the subject of probably the coolest paper I've ever found accidentally). The thing is, the amount of CO2 it could have put out would have caused the temperature to go up about 4c, on its own. However what also seems to have occured around that era is that the permafrost melts, most likely from the 4c rise from the Siberian Traps. That then would be enough to bring it up to around 10c. Its the permafrost bit that has people worried, because that would likely have been a fairly rapid event, because if 4c over a very long period of time can do that, then god knows what slamming a 4c rise in the space of 100 years could do, but it probably aint fun. Further disturbing is we he have evidence that at least some of the permafrost is already melting. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22549-arctic-permafrost-is-melting-faster-than-predicted.html Thats a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Then why did he post this;- eh I just don't think it's fair to ask someone to disprove something like that. First you have to show why you think a 10c rise would cause an extinction. The answer is ocean hypoxia and a drier terrestrial climate but there is a lot up for debate regarding the causes of the extinction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:eh I just don't think it's fair to ask someone to disprove something like that. First you have to show why you think a 10c rise would cause an extinction. The answer is ocean hypoxia and a drier terrestrial climate but there is a lot up for debate regarding the causes of the extinction. For big, fully grown animals like us, sure. But if you're smaller, increases in temperature can cause sterilization, eggs not hatching or hatching the wrong way, and outright kill things lower down in the food chain. Many reptiles have temperature-dependent gender specification, for example, so a 10c increase is gonna cause way more female reptiles than males. I'm sure more knowledgeable goons will provide better examples than 'more girl alligators.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
So I'm doing a scientific research paper on permafrost for a class I'm taking on global environmental changes. Part of this paper is a background on different modeling studies and their predictions for CO2 emmissions from thawed permafrost. As best I can tell the most comprehensive modeling studies in this are this: quote:Abstract this: quote:Abstract. and this: quote:ABSTRACT Being not a climate scientist, I'm having a hard time working my way through the jargon and figuring out what conclusions these modeling studies came to. with the exception of the latter one. I was wondering if anyone here with a bit more climate science expertise could enlighten me as to where these studies generally agree and disagree, what conclusions we can draw from them as a whole, etc. edit: if this is the wrong place to ask, let me know Red and Black fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Has any researcher studied the amount of water currently locked in place within the worlds permafrost? I'm curious if it would be enough to matter sea level wise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Spudalicious posted:Heres some actual good news I suppose. My dad's partner Klaus Lachner from Columbia University is ready to move to the next stage of their project with atmospheric CO2 capture. I have a few questions I'm hoping you can get the answers for from your dad: What is the effective level of carbon sequestration under ideal conditions per gram of material, or if it's being measure by surface area per meter of material. What do the efficiency curves look like for changes in moisture content? What factor does temperature play with the material? What is the cost per whatever given unit of the material? Is it likely to go down significantly given industrial scale production, or does it have high fixed material costs? Could this material be used in a closed circuit carbon sequestration system using solar or wind power? Something along the lines of Solar / Wind power being used in conjunction with reusable desiccants to achieve ideal air conditions, forcing the air through the material to absorb C02, and releasing the C02 into an aqueous solution under pressure-- or something similar. Liquid C02 sequestration and then figure out how to sequester it in a more stable form type system. Could this material be used in this type of system at very, very, large scales? And last but not least, is the above idea even remotely within the realm of possible given realistic advancements in material sciences? (Your dad being a material scientist I assume he'd have good insight here into whether or not this is just a dream)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
JonDev posted:So I'm doing a scientific research paper on permafrost for a class I'm taking on global environmental changes. Part of this paper is a background on different modeling studies and their predictions for CO2 emmissions from thawed permafrost. There's a lot in those studies, if you can point out exactly what's confusing I'm sure someone will explain it. The first created a more accurate model of permafrost soils that suggests larger carbon emissions than predicted by the IPCC. The second attempts to reduce uncertainties surrounding carbon flux in permafrost to better understand how current warming could release more carbon. It concludes that by 2100 33-114 Gigatonnes of carbon will be released if nobody tries to reduce emissions. tl;dr we are so screwed
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:eh I just don't think it's fair to ask someone to disprove something like that. First you have to show why you think a 10c rise would cause an extinction. The answer is ocean hypoxia and a drier terrestrial climate but there is a lot up for debate regarding the causes of the extinction. Uh. What do you think would happen if large sections of the earth had 10c temperature rises? Even the degree therabouts we have now is having all sorts of crazy effects. Many, maybe most species are incredibly specific about the environmental parameters they can exist in. Humans, rats, whatever maybe not so much, but even we'd be incapable of living anymore around the equator because we'd simply die in 55-65c temperatures without serious environmental support (aircons etc). One of the things thats concerning me at the moment is what appears to be a shifting of humidity down southwards in western australia where I live. Thats tropical weather. We are now predictably getting nearly tropical summers, whereas before we where getting mediteratian summers. Thats 1c, and we're already seein weird poo poo happening environmentally. 1c. gently caress knows what 10c would mean, but my guess would be losing the south west forests and the entire green strip at the bottom of western australia to..... well something else, but probably desert. Thats the thing. 10c is not a minor change. Its a fundamental rewrite of the environment. And your going to get a very extreme loss of species. Just think of the numbers A 20c max (comfortably spring) place becomes 30c max (hot) A 30c max (hot) place becomes 40c max (Deeply uncomfortably hot) A 40c max (really hot) becomes 50c max (Inferno and a lot of dudes dying) A 50c max (Inferno) becomes 60c max (Game over). And your loving dead meat if you happen to be in Dubai or Death Valley! And to make it worse, since a 10c avg rise won't be consistant, we have no drat idea how that distributes (Well maybe some folks do, I'm not a climate scientist) so we would see some rises as MORE than 10 and some as less. Add to that insanity weather as all that extra energy stirs up high/low pressure shitfights (tornados/cyclones), storms , rising seas, fires, flooding, and its just a total mess. A 10c rise means total insanity and a complete rewrite of the biosphere. As I said before. A 10c rise is entirely consistent with the sort of chaos associated with the permian extinction event. If we assume based on what we can tell from the data that we got that sort of rise then, to posit ANOTHER cause because for some reason 10c DIDNT do it , requires concocting some pretty novel physics and science. Its a big claim. duck monster fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
For one the Ocean's thermal intertia makes it so that most of the temperature gain is going to be felt over land. So you can just go ahead and pencil in that in a 10c increase situation average land temperatures are going to raise more than 10c. Saying "well, what makes you so sure there will be an extinction crisis if we go up 10c" is just ignorant. I'd be interested to know how hot the ocean has to get before we have to start worrying about Methane clathrates thawing. From what I understand this is what happened during the Permian (first 5c was from the Siberian traps, then the warming triggered the clathrates - another 5c of warming- which wiped out 95% of all life on Earth).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:eh I just don't think it's fair to ask someone to disprove something like that. First you have to show why you think a 10c rise would cause an extinction. The answer is ocean hypoxia and a drier terrestrial climate but there is a lot up for debate regarding the causes of the extinction. I do accept theres debate about the causes, I was however replying to the comment that that temperature rise wouldn't necessarily cause such an extinction. Which is of course absurd. So I am arguing it on the premise that the temperature rise happened. Ie if it happened, we can safely say thats the cause, occams razor and all that. However I do accept that whilst the siberian traps part seems to be certain, the permafrost stuff is still up for debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
There's really no reason we need to find out about any potential positive feedbacks that might be lurking beneath earth or water. We can be open to the possibility that there is a very small chance that climate change might not be as bad as some predict, just as those who don't think it wont be that bad should accept that there is a chance, however small, that it could be a lot worse. It will cost us far less to do too much to deal with climate change and not need it, than it would be to not do enough and find out that it wasn't enough to stop the planet's heating. Simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:There's really no reason we need to find out about any potential positive feedbacks that might be lurking beneath earth or water. We can be open to the possibility that there is a very small chance that climate change might not be as bad as some predict, just as those who don't think it wont be that bad should accept that there is a chance, however small, that it could be a lot worse. That is sort of like saying that we shouldn't pollute our air and water, because, who doesn't like clean air and water? It seems so drat obvious; which is of course why so many people are completely flabbergasted by not just the inaction, but the absolute war (is that too strong of a word?) against doing something proactive. I'm pretty sure that the most recent studies show the majority of Americans accept global warming and that the changing climate worries them. Somehow though, the political fight has been absolutely lost. We need to stop arguing about the science, because we've already won the science battle, we need to start focusing upon the political battles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
duck monster posted:I do accept theres debate about the causes, I was however replying to the comment that that temperature rise wouldn't necessarily cause such an extinction. Which is of course absurd. So I am arguing it on the premise that the temperature rise happened. Ie if it happened, we can safely say thats the cause, occams razor and all that. However I do accept that whilst the siberian traps part seems to be certain, the permafrost stuff is still up for debate. That's not absurd at all, at least for someone who isn't familiar with climate science or ecology. If we fast forward to the PETM which was 5-8 degrees warming I think? the extinction rate hardly blips above the background level. A few specific groups did suffer extinctions like benthic foraminifera but you also see increases in diversity among mammals, here both ungulates and primates first appear in paleontological record. It's hard to imagine just how loving hot it was 55 million years ago. The average temperature in Venezuela was 30C (90F)! In modern plants photosynthesis shuts down around 35-40C, and we have almost no idea what tropical ecosystems looked like under these conditions. Well, we do know there were 13 m 1 ton snakes that could eat a saltie for breakfast roaming around but there generally the record is really bad. The point I was making before I distracted myself with giant snakes is that this stuff is complicated, and it isn't unreasonable for someone unfamiliar with the topic to be skeptical. Especially when those claims are about events that occurred 250 mya and being applied to political arguments. As long as you're reasonable genuinely interested and not Arkane you diserve an explanation. really I was just annoyed you asked someone to prove a negative. bad form that. Also I have sources for any facts included in this post, if someone is interested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
One thing that concerns me, and perhaps leaves me at a loss, is I've been following this thread for quite a while; I attempt to explain some of this to others, and provide references if able, but sometimes I'm met with outright hostile attitudes; while it is not important for me to be RIGHT and my friends/associates to be WRONG, I present tons of sources provided by people that have studied these things with what I can only assume to be impressive credentials. I struggle with the emotions that this situation fills me with between brief (and much less occuring now) episodes of panic, and what is more common as a feeling of a sort of apathetic acceptance, with maybe a glimmer of optimism (however unlikely that optimism is). Do you have the same reactions (Both with your own emotions, and the reactions of close friends/family that you discuss these things with)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
duck monster posted:And to make it worse, since a 10c avg rise won't be consistant, we have no drat idea how that distributes (Well maybe some folks do, I'm not a climate scientist) so we would see some rises as MORE than 10 and some as less. I have seen predictions that if we hit runaway warming, by 2300 the Earth will warm up 12C and this will result in 40% of the landmass of Earth being uninhabitable by humans, with average temperatures of 60C (140F) or more. It's hard to predict something so far out, but the predictions we have for runaway warming are not good. Quantum Mechanic posted:US Carbon Emissions at Lowest Level since '94 How much of this has to do with our increased use of natural gas? For the record, I think natural gas is useful in the short term (5-10 years) as we make the transition to technologies that emit zero CO2. But the problem with our increased use of natural gas is that companies are investing billions in the infrastructure and rights to frack for this stuff. They aren't making those investments for the short term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:One thing that concerns me, and perhaps leaves me at a loss, is I've been following this thread for quite a while; I attempt to explain some of this to others, and provide references if able, but sometimes I'm met with outright hostile attitudes; while it is not important for me to be RIGHT and my friends/associates to be WRONG, I present tons of sources provided by people that have studied these things with what I can only assume to be impressive credentials. I have this issue with one of my friends in particular, who is pretty liberal and scientifically minded on other subjects. It's just that when it comes to climate change, he starts spouting off tired garbage like "volcanic eruptions will counteract warming before it gets too bad", "climate scientists need to be alarmist to get grants", or quoting some pithy George Carlin bit. The only explanation I have for that kind of mindset is this: accepting the reality of our current scientific understanding necessitates society making hard choices that will drastically impact our current lifestyles. People are going to have to give up some of the creature comforts that come as part of the western white middle class way of living, because it's simply unsustainable. That kind of thing is so hard to accept that I imagine for some people it's easier to just assume that the threat is overblown, the science is not settled, some techno-magic will save us, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
koolkal posted:I wish there was more research done on the effects of various aerosols. With increased research, we could potentially discover an aerosol to reduce the amount of infrared radiation which reaches the earth while minimizing the effect on the visible spectrum. If this aerosol had a minimal biological effect and was relatively short-lived, we could potentially prevent some of the more drastic effects due to increased temperature. While this wouldn't solve the effects of heightened CO2, it's certainly something worth looking at. http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/ozone-destruction Not exactly what you're looking for, but it's about aerosols impacting solar radiation and I haven't seen it posted yet. Apparently big storms pull up a lot more water vapour to the stratosphere then previously thought, where it facilitates the reactions that break down ozone. And global warming brings more and bigger storms, thus contributing to ozone depletion and not just only above the poles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:That's not absurd at all, at least for someone who isn't familiar with climate science or ecology. If we fast forward to the PETM which was 5-8 degrees warming I think? the extinction rate hardly blips above the background level. A few specific groups did suffer extinctions like benthic foraminifera but you also see increases in diversity among mammals, here both ungulates and primates first appear in paleontological record. It's hard to imagine just how loving hot it was 55 million years ago. The average temperature in Venezuela was 30C (90F)! In modern plants photosynthesis shuts down around 35-40C, and we have almost no idea what tropical ecosystems looked like under these conditions. Well, we do know there were 13 m 1 ton snakes that could eat a saltie for breakfast roaming around but there generally the record is really bad. I assume, to keep the extinction rate low, that in a couple hundred years our snakes will once again be 13m long. Awesome. (Kidding)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:How much of this has to do with our increased use of natural gas? At least some of it, I think, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly lowered demand from the recession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:One thing that concerns me, and perhaps leaves me at a loss, is I've been following this thread for quite a while; I attempt to explain some of this to others, and provide references if able, but sometimes I'm met with outright hostile attitudes; while it is not important for me to be RIGHT and my friends/associates to be WRONG, I present tons of sources provided by people that have studied these things with what I can only assume to be impressive credentials. My impression is that people, generally, across class/race/sex/professions, don't want to talk about climate change. I've been shocked with how little it's talked about in my liberal (some would say radical) graduate program. There's a book called Living in Denial which details the social construction and maintenance of the denial of the effects of global warming in a Norwegian town facing far shorter winters etc. It's not that they deny the science, they just don't want to talk about it. toy fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Feb 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
That and all the "The climate scientists have totally overestimated this "global warming" thing guys! Like, oceans are totally a CO2 sink"-kinda articles that the popular media likes to run every other week from "renowed climate scientists" that are either a bunch of hacks, or just misquoted scientists that have just presented their revised "best case" scenario or something. The way the human brain works it's *very* easy to ignore this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
Squalid posted:That's not absurd at all, at least for someone who isn't familiar with climate science or ecology. If we fast forward to the PETM which was 5-8 degrees warming I think? the extinction rate hardly blips above the background level. A few specific groups did suffer extinctions like benthic foraminifera but you also see increases in diversity among mammals, here both ungulates and primates first appear in paleontological record. It's hard to imagine just how loving hot it was 55 million years ago. The average temperature in Venezuela was 30C (90F)! In modern plants photosynthesis shuts down around 35-40C, and we have almost no idea what tropical ecosystems looked like under these conditions. Well, we do know there were 13 m 1 ton snakes that could eat a saltie for breakfast roaming around but there generally the record is really bad. It's important to note that the current biosphere is already highly stressed from a combination of the holocene extinction and then the massive loss of habitat post industrial revolution. Lining up multiple stressors is how you get the big extinction events.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Fleur Bleu posted:http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/ozone-destruction https://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/ This article better summarizes my view on the matter. It's a terrible but potentially effective solution for a short term fix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Of course Ozone breakdown isn't exactly ideal either. It might facilitate evolution but it also facilitates fecking cancer!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
JonDev posted:Permafrost I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but I posted a bit earlier about the CO2 / Methane stored in permafrost and linked an article earlier if you filter my posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I PM'd you back, but here are the answers. Pretty interesting. I was surprised to see him so optimistic, usually he's a bit of a downer.GAS CURES KIKES posted:I have a few questions I'm hoping you can get the answers for from your dad: Could this be the thing that saves us all? I don't know. My dad typically advocates for increased energy usage in order to spur technological development, I'm somewhat more divided in how I believe it would be best to combat climate change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
More evidence that we're heading for ice-free Arctic summers sooner rather than later. Really terrifying stuff. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/ I don't even know how to talk about climate change anymore. It seems downplaying the severity of the situation is necessary for people to not shut down entirely and/or think you're nuts, but it's also what allows news like this to pass quietly and be buried under the wave of overly-positive thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
toy posted:More evidence that we're heading for ice-free Arctic summers sooner rather than later. Really terrifying stuff. So many things are happening at once that people can't concentrate. The crisis of capitalism, the ecological crisis, global societal crises of class, religion, ethnicity, modernity and postmodernity. The problem is so big, and the institutional structures that must be mobilised in order to deal with climate change are generally not ones ordinary people have access to in the first place. I think that's the appeal of relocalisation efforts, in the sense that you're asking people to do things on a tangible scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:One thing that concerns me, and perhaps leaves me at a loss, is I've been following this thread for quite a while; I attempt to explain some of this to others, and provide references if able, but sometimes I'm met with outright hostile attitudes; while it is not important for me to be RIGHT and my friends/associates to be WRONG, I present tons of sources provided by people that have studied these things with what I can only assume to be impressive credentials. My job consists working at chemical plant for about 80% or so. At this moment I am stationed at an Oil Company. We discuss really a lot but I don’t recall global environment being a subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
So there was a pretty big (~35-50k) rally in DC yesterday against Keystone XL: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-928863?hpt=us_bn3 Sorry for the lack of a better source. Does anyone have any thoughts in this regard? I haven't seen much discussion about what people are doing in terms of movements but this seems to be one of the more promising ones. Also any insight on what Obama might do with Keystone XL?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Here's a pretty long-winded article about Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change which might explain some of the reactions people have when it comes to climate change: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1407958 quote:Abstract:
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
My (entirely anecdotal) ray of sunshine on this topic: in my opinion it's definitely getting easier to "win" those random message board debates on this topic. I know, I know, arguing on the internet, Special Olympics, ho ho ha ha, but seriously. I'm not a scientist and have no credentials or credibility beyond just having read a lot of poo poo on the topic of AGW, but there have been multiple occasions in the last month or so where I've waded right into some bitchfest on Daily Caller or some conservative blog and been able to expose folks as full of poo poo pretty easily. This isn't because I'm a brilliant debater, but because the volume and saturation of credible, well-reasoned refutations of every denialist talking point are easy to find and use to form a good response. (Skeptical Science, Reality Drop, etc.) In other words, it feels like we've reached a point where we have enough evidence from so many sources that it's much more straightforward to go into an argument with someone who claims to know what they're talking about and put invalid arguments to bed pretty decisively. It gives me hope that the tide is slowly beginning to turn on this issue and that we might be getting closer to Joe Public taking this poo poo a little more seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
rivetz posted:My (entirely anecdotal) ray of sunshine on this topic: in my opinion it's definitely getting easier to "win" those random message board debates on this topic. I know, I know, arguing on the internet, Special Olympics, ho ho ha ha, but seriously. I'm not a scientist and have no credentials or credibility beyond just having read a lot of poo poo on the topic of AGW, but there have been multiple occasions in the last month or so where I've waded right into some bitchfest on Daily Caller or some conservative blog and been able to expose folks as full of poo poo pretty easily. This isn't because I'm a brilliant debater, but because the volume and saturation of credible, well-reasoned refutations of every denialist talking point are easy to find and use to form a good response. (Skeptical Science, Reality Drop, etc.) These are special horses that will loving drown before even acknowledging they're wet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
rivetz posted:My (entirely anecdotal) ray of sunshine on this topic: in my opinion it's definitely getting easier to "win" those random message board debates on this topic. I know, I know, arguing on the internet, Special Olympics, ho ho ha ha, but seriously. I'm not a scientist and have no credentials or credibility beyond just having read a lot of poo poo on the topic of AGW, but there have been multiple occasions in the last month or so where I've waded right into some bitchfest on Daily Caller or some conservative blog and been able to expose folks as full of poo poo pretty easily. This isn't because I'm a brilliant debater, but because the volume and saturation of credible, well-reasoned refutations of every denialist talking point are easy to find and use to form a good response. (Skeptical Science, Reality Drop, etc.) I know it's in your post but I can't stress enough how good of a resource Skeptical Science is. If anyone hasn't seen it before just spend 5 minutes to have a look. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ It even has an Iphone app.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Michael Grunwald, author of The New New Deal, and an Obama supporter who has been loudly proclaiming that climate activists do not appreciate all the accomplishments the President has done in fighting climate change, comes out against Keystone XL. It's well worth reading. http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/28/im-with-the-tree-huggers/ quote:The respectable center has recognized that climate change is not only real and man-made but also a genuine emergency. The scientific evidence has become too stark to indulge denial or dithering. The earth is hotter; Arctic ice is melting at a terrifying rate; staid institutions like reinsurers and the CIA are sounding dire warnings about rising seas and extreme droughts. There’s an emerging consensus that fossil fuel apologists are on the wrong side of the battle of the century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Something from the Newscientist about having proof that climate change has lead to humanitarian disaster:quote:For the first time, we have proof that climate change has led to a humanitarian disaster. The East African drought of 2011, which resulted in a famine that killed at least 50,000 people, was partly caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
So I've been seeing this image bandied around: Source I'm not really knowledgeable enough to rebut, any insights from anyone else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:25
|
|
