|
bjobjoli posted:The primary value of Mars is in answering the question of whether or not life can spontaneously arise in the right conditions. The answer to this question would have the biggest impact in thinking for this century. Other than that, Mars and space in general serve as a training ground for scientists and engineers, which is also important. Colonization and and terraforming aren't really solutions to anything, just lesser scientific experiments to be conducted in the void. Uh... you know, we already know whether or not life can spontaneously arise in the right conditions? If/when life or fossils are found on Mars, it's not going to me a big deal, because it's expected. xeria posted:Colonization isn't a solution to any current crises we face today, be it climate change or otherwise; it's a solution to the idea that there's an infinite number of things in this universe, beyond our control, that can wipe out humanity in the blink of an eye so it's probably a good idea spread out as much as possible so that the chances of all 7+ billion of us dying instantly are lessened. This whole stupid space-colonisation/terraforming discussion is completely unproductive, both in general discussion and the context of this thread. It's already been said here that you should not be caring about the possibility of making a Mars colony in a number of decades when hundreds of millions of people will soon be finding themselves in areas of permanent drought, underwater, or in a place where millions of such people have evacuated to. Can we discuss fixing our actual problems instead of pulp sci-fi scenarios?
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Why should I care if a bunch of TED speakers and shipping heiresses get to live on Mars while my family dies, anyways?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:This whole stupid space-colonisation/terraforming discussion is completely unproductive, both in general discussion and the context of this thread. It's already been said here that you should not be caring about the possibility of making a Mars colony in a number of decades when hundreds of millions of people will soon be finding themselves in areas of permanent drought, underwater, or in a place where millions of such people have evacuated to. Radbot posted:Why should I care if a bunch of TED speakers and shipping heiresses get to live on Mars while my family dies, anyways? It's been said several times on the past two pages, but you've both got it backwards. There likely won't be any space-colonization if hundreds of millions of people find themselves in areas of permanent drought. That was the point of the discussion. Climate change = heavy shock to humanity = no life getting off earth = the only known source of life in the universe can be wiped out by a single hit. It's not pulp sci-fi, it's the very hard reality of the current state of life. It's a statement that by not preventing climate change we may doom life in the universe to to a tiny footnote in history. I'm starting to settle on my own theory for why the Fermi paradox exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:It's been said several times on the past two pages, but you've both got it backwards. There likely won't be any space-colonization if hundreds of millions of people find themselves in areas of permanent drought. That was the point of the discussion. I myself stated, about 7 posts after you brought up the subject, that "I think that manned space exploration is not only without value at the moment, but damaging to our survival prospects", for reasons that I have given. I agree that manned space exploration should be deferred until we don't have to worry about climate change, war and poverty anymore (i.e. a couple of centuries, at least). If we get hit by a comet before then, well, too bad. It's just sentimental to have a yearning for humans to still be alive a thousand years from now, a condition that cannot affect you or multiple generations after you, and that your contribution to will amount to close to zero, unless you are a current or future superpower leader. Ed: fixed word order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 18:51
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:If we get hit by a comet before then, well, too bad. It's just sentimental to have a yearning for humans to still be alive a thousand years from now, a condition that cannot affect you or multiple generations after you, and that your contribution to will amount to close to zero, unless you are a current or future superpower leader. How many future generations are we allowed to care about, then? What's the cutoff?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
A common theory on emissions strategy is that we should have a phased approach in which overall emissions are limited as well as reducing sources of emissions. Then we work with the reduced emissions sources. Given that we probably cannot muster the political will or policy to do this, it is probably too hypothetical to think about. I do wonder if we were able to do some version of this how the power dynamics would play out since reduction in sources of emissions also means consolidation for means of production. I have not been able to really think clearly about the impact of that. For instance, in the strategic thinking of big oil, it is common knowledge that the Chinese believe that in the process of such consolidation and a period of energy decent and transition that the US would simply park fleets on the supply chains. This thinking is now several years old and the US domestic gas landscape may have changed it. I also need help thinking about nuclear. The scale of nuclear exceeds the scale and duration of nation-states and current social contracts. How do we deal with that aspect? I am assuming nuclear as a real viable option, but I have not been able to work through that part of it. Risks are also low probability/ high impact which is very hard to plan for organizationally. I think something needs to change to make it work, but I can't quite sort it for myself. I have not seen a thread or any conversation about ITER. What is the view on that? Sogol fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I myself stated, about 7 posts after you brought up the subject, that "I think that manned space exploration is not only without value at the moment, but damaging to our survival prospects", for reasons that I have given. I agree that manned space exploration should be deferred until we don't have to worry about climate change, war and poverty anymore (i.e. a couple of centuries, at least). Honestly I think what we see when people talk about preventing human extinction is more an expression of the human drive to explore than anything else. There seems to be a gene that is expressed more in some people than others - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/125-restless-genes/dobbs-text I think "human extinction" is really just a cover for wanting to cross the next ocean- we've always thought the solution to our problems to be another world it seems. It's also not obvious to me that any planet in human traveling distance (assuming SoL holds) is any better than earth. All of the extinction events mentioned thus far would be far better solvable using vaults than trying to gently caress around on mars or in outer space. I've said it before but it's pretty much impossible to overstate how much better earth is than anywhere else in 10's - 100's of light years. e: quote:Neanderthals were around hundreds of thousands of years, but they never spread around the world. In just 50,000 years we covered everything. There’s a kind of madness to it. Sailing out into the ocean, you have no idea what’s on the other side. And now we go to Mars. We never stop. Why?” enbot fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:How many future generations are we allowed to care about, then? What's the cutoff? 32. See?  In all seriousness, as many as possible. It should be the goal of every human to leave the world better for future than we found it for us. Doesn't matter how far down the line that manifests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I guarantee you, if there were an obvious way to end extreme poverty that cost only $175 billion over 20 years, it would have happened. It may not be the Cold War any more, but the US would love to have this under their belt; "POVERTY IS GONE AND WE KILLED IT" would basically make us immune to criticism. Tax the rich? Bam, I'm immune to criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:How many future generations are we allowed to care about, then? What's the cutoff? Well I tend to care most about the generation that we know is clearly going to be affected horribly by Climate change and which 99% of won't see any benefit from spending vast amount of resources to try and realize pie in the sky nerd fantasies when said resources could be put to work on earth to combat climate change. Maybe I'm being callous towards those hypothetical people who could be killed by a hypothetical meteor in a thousand years, but I tend to prefer combating threats that we are being affected by right now in a manner that's effective. This is all getting totally off-topic, if people are really interested in discussing off-world colonization maybe they should make a thread for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:06
|
|
khwarezm posted:Well I tend to care most about the generation that we know is clearly going to be affected horribly by Climate change and which 99% of won't see any benefit from spending vast amount of resources to try and realize pie in the sky nerd fantasies when said resources could be put to work on earth to combat climate change. Maybe I'm being callous towards those hypothetical people who could be killed by a hypothetical meteor in a thousand years, but I tend to prefer combating threats that we are being affected by right now in a manner that's effective. This is all getting totally off-topic, if people are really interested in discussing off-world colonization maybe they should make a thread for that. Good job reading the thread, chief. For the thousandth loving time, no one here is advocating putting resources into space colonisation instead of combatting climate change, in fact quite the opposite.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
I have recently been corresponding with the guy who coined the phrase cli-fi, which is climate change fiction, a growing genre that is pretty broad. You might have an author like Barbara Kingsolver writing about an Appalachian butterfly behavior brought on by climate change (Flight Behavior). And then lots of authors bring climate change to fiction with an overall dystopian and speculative fiction set in the future. A growing number of news media have covered this just recently. I'm trying to get a more exhaustive list of such novels at this blog. Some of the books look really good. In disclosure, I wrote one of them (not necessarily a "looks good" one!). If anyone can recommend novels not listed, feel fee to comment. At some point I'd like to also include a list of non-fiction books on the subject. It's sort of hard when climate change in literature is so broad that you kind of start entering into potentially badly written fiction books or non-fiction books that aren't really scientifically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
The blog mentions Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl, but Bacigalupi's YA novels Ship Breaker and The Drowned Cities are just as concerned with climate change. Also JG Ballard's The Drowned World is not about anthropogenic climate change but does a great job of bringing to life a tropical, half-submerged London.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:The blog mentions Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl, but Bacigalupi's YA novels Ship Breaker and The Drowned Cities are just as concerned with climate change. Thanks. I'll add these too. I think providing the reference to anthropogenic climate change is key.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:How many future generations are we allowed to care about, then? What's the cutoff? Well, unless you are a current or future superpower leader, as I said, your contribution to the situation 1000 years in the future will be approximately zero. Therefore, there is nothing you can do to make the situation at that time better or worse. Whatever situation the climate gets into due to 18th-21st century industry, by 1000 years time, whatever life exists will have evolved in those conditions. However, your actions will have an effect on the generations that are alive at the same time as you and for a few generations after. You should care about your own contribution to climate change, pollution, food and water security, wage slavery and other social issues so far as they affect people in the next century, but after that, you should not feel further guilt or responsibility; it's neither worthwhile nor rational to care about whether humans survive until the heat death of the universe or just for 500 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Good job reading the thread, chief. For the thousandth loving time, no one here is advocating putting resources into space colonisation instead of combatting climate change, in fact quite the opposite. Holy moley I almost thought this was a thread about climate change and not stupid fantasies about space colonization. If you were serious about space colonization then it would cost astonishing amounts of resources, time and money to be pulled off for any appreciable amount of people, as far as I'm concerned it would be better to wait until after (or rather if) we've dealt with the problems of climate change before pursuing such an adventure. There's already a ton of other concerns that draw resources and attention from combating climate change (imagine what would have been achieved if America put forward the amount of resources it spent in Iraq and Afghanistan toward combating climate change instead) and I have no interest in seeing space colonization add to that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:12
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Well, unless you are a current or future superpower leader, as I said, your contribution to the situation 1000 years in the future will be approximately zero. Therefore, there is nothing you can do to make the situation at that time better or worse. Whatever situation the climate gets into due to 18th-21st century industry, by 1000 years time, whatever life exists will have evolved in those conditions. So you should only care about people whose lives you can significantly affect? That seems like a bit of a slippery slope. Why couldn't you apply that same argument and say you only have responsibility for your descendents, since you can affect their lives way more than some guy in China or Mozambique - so why not become an oil industry executive and leave your kids a nice inheritance they can ride out the effects of climate change with? Why not just care about all humans, no matter when they're living? Particularly since it makes no difference to what our priorities should be right now, ie working to prevent/mitigate climate change. Which brings me to: khwarezm posted:Holy moley I almost thought this was a thread about climate change and not stupid fantasies about space colonization. If you were serious about space colonization then it would cost astonishing amounts of resources, time and money to be pulled off for any appreciable amount of people, as far as I'm concerned it would be better to wait until after (or rather if) we've dealt with the problems of climate change before pursuing such an adventure. There's already a ton of other concerns that draw resources and attention from combating climate change (imagine what would have been achieved if America put forward the amount of resources it spent in Iraq and Afghanistan toward combating climate change instead) and I have no interest in seeing space colonization add to that. Funny, I thought I'd already said that no one here is advocating putting resources into space colonisation instead of combatting climate change. Oh, hang on, I did, in the post you were replying to  .
Clipperton fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:The blog mentions Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl, but Bacigalupi's YA novels Ship Breaker and The Drowned Cities are just as concerned with climate change. Bacigalupi's books are fun reads but the idea of genengineering herd animals to store "calories" or electricity into springs by winding them up is pretty retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Bacigalupi's books are fun reads but the idea of genengineering herd animals to store "calories" or electricity into springs by winding them up is pretty retarded. Probably the most disturbing aspect of his books to me were the plagues. Genetically engineered diseases that infect all plant life, making them deadly for humans to even be near, and designed to mutate so frequently that even the best scientists in the world can barely stay ahead of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:
People were advocating space colonization for its own sake and bemoaning the fact that climate change takes away from it which which I thought were odd priorities and off-topic, especially since it fixated on the eventual end of all life on earth in the far future which is putting the cart before the horse to say the least. I apologize if I can across as a bit aggressive in my first response but the last page was talking about the logistics of terraforming mars, I think we're better off talking about this than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:So you should only care about people whose lives you can significantly affect? That seems like a bit of a slippery slope. Why couldn't you apply that same argument and say you only have responsibility for your descendents, since you can affect their lives way more than some guy in China or Mozambique - so why not become an oil industry executive and leave your kids a nice inheritance they can ride out the effects of climate change with? I thought my argument was pretty clear, as I stated "You should care about your own contribution to climate change, pollution, food and water security, wage slavery and other social issues so far as they affect people in the next century". There was nothing to suggest that this was motivated by nepotism, and all I think that can be read from it is that you should reduce your negative effects on the climate, pollution, etc, which is what you're telling me we should be doing, which is what I already said. There is not even anything that you can do to affect individuals (i.e. your own descendants) in 100 years time; even if you were to accumulate a vast fortune, it's not possible to guarantee that any of it will stay in the family for a decade after your death, let alone a hundred years. Even the worst polluter alive today is only contributing a minute fraction to the excess CO2 and other pollutants in the biosphere, that have been released for over two centuries. The World's Worst Polluter is still a bad person, but his personal crimes will not be discernible in a century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:People were advocating space colonization for its own sake and bemoaning the fact that climate change takes away from it which which I thought were odd priorities and off-topic, especially since it fixated on the eventual end of all life on earth in the far future which is putting the cart before the horse to say the least. Controversy spurs discussion, for better or worse, it's the way forums work. What I'd like to know is what is the horse in your opinion? There are plenty of solutions, but what is the vehicle to make people care? The way I see it the problems are scientific illiteracy and shortsightedness. We have all the scientific data we should need to make movement towards a carbon neutral economy a nobrainer. The gross world product is somewhere between 70 and 90 trillion. Clearly we could become carbon neutral if there was the will to do so. I would argue that the solution is making science attractive and sexy. More people like Elon Musk are needed to make science interesting to laymen because under democracy it's the laymen who make policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Controversy spurs discussion, for better or worse, it's the way forums work. What I'd like to know is what is the horse in your opinion? There are plenty of solutions, but what is the vehicle to make people care? Well, unfortunately to be honest I think the vehicle to make people care is the degradation in living standards that climate change brings. A lot have argued and I'd tend to agree that we're at a point where not only are we unable to stop climate change but are already feeling its effects. So in my opinion action will end up coming from hard pragmatism rather than a more idealistic stance. I think you might be overestimating just how sexy science can be made, look at the space program for example, that was built as the ultimate example of American national ingenuity and exploration of the unknown, it had great enthusiasm with the public initially, but we haven't been back to the moon in forty years despite the best efforts of many scientists to encourage a new program and NASA is often targeted for financial evisceration which most people don't really care about. The environmental movement has had similar problems I think, just think about how the environmental movement branded itself over the 2000s, generally trying to be trendy and non-intrusive, you could save the planet by buying the right ligtbulbs or turning off the TV, taking a walk to work and buying local foods. It was effective to a point, i.e British Petroleum trying the brand itself as "beyond Petroleum" and paying lip-service to going green. And there was a serious attempt to make the basic science accessible and interesting through people like Al Gore with an Inconvenient truth or Leonardo DiCaprio and the 11th hour. But how effective was it really? BP didn't change its spots, the U.S still produces vast amounts of CO2 and world pollution has only risen. Tar sands is a big industry in somewhere as socially progressive as Canada, Fracking is all the rage and passing carbon taxes in places like Australia was... difficult (Australia still has stupid high per capita emissions). Effective action is going to have to come from necessity in the end, the science is well known, not even the deniers have any rounds left and when I talk to people there is an understanding that a problem exists, but not much has stirred over the last five years even after Obama set his sights on it during his inauguration, it will have to take obvious and serious repercussions for people to open up to just how real the problem actually is. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:30
|
|
khwarezm posted:I apologize if I can across as a bit aggressive in my first response but the last page was talking about the logistics of terraforming mars, I think we're better off talking about this than that. Yeah but that was Arkane.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:The way I see it the problems are scientific illiteracy and shortsightedness. We have all the scientific data we should need to make movement towards a carbon neutral economy a nobrainer. The gross world product is somewhere between 70 and 90 trillion. Clearly we could become carbon neutral if there was the will to do so. It doesn't help. Climate change deniers are typically old white men, who are more likely to be scientists than the population as a whole. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:It doesn't help. Climate change deniers are typically old white men, who are more likely to be scientists than the population as a whole. It was exactly those type of deniers that thought up the whole denier strategy in the first place. And the tobacco strategy etc etc. The problem with the hopeful solution in your linked story is that its very difficult to talk to specific audiences to apply that "cultural filleting". For instance this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
eh4 posted:The problem with the hopeful solution in your linked story is that its very difficult to talk to specific audiences to apply that "cultural filleting". For instance this thread. Yes, I didn't mean to endorse the 'solution'. Another problem with it is that it suggests environmentalists had better shut up, because we're putting people who don't like us off. It's a kind of triangulation, which dooms you in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
After not following and pretty much closing my head to climate change for the last 4-5 years I started reading up on it again(including a big chunk of this thread). I think I'm relatively caught up and somewhat freaked out(not apocalyptic, but very worried). I was in the middle of searching for what to do as a career and this is just too important to ignore. I've always tried hard not have my own emotions or "wants" overshine evidence and reason(although tough), so I can't turn a blind eye anymore, and I can't imagine not trying to contribute. I have a fresh Biochem degree but I'm not opposed to going back for something else. It seems like there are so many things that need to be studied I'm having trouble pinpointing/deciding on a topic that would be beneficial, that I could choose to pursue. I was wondering if any of the learned goons of this thread had an idea of specific fields(or courses) that I could work in to contribute directly, and have an impact. I'm an Ottawa goon which means anything environment related(or any science really) has been completely gutted, or will be soon, so I'm worried about actually getting work and/or experience. Basically I gots somewhat of a brain that I want to dedicate long term towards a solution. If possible, being able to eat at the same time would be a huge plus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Stoven posted:After not following and pretty much closing my head to climate change for the last 4-5 years I started reading up on it again(including a big chunk of this thread). I think I'm relatively caught up and somewhat freaked out(not apocalyptic, but very worried). I was in the middle of searching for what to do as a career and this is just too important to ignore. I've always tried hard not have my own emotions or "wants" overshine evidence and reason(although tough), so I can't turn a blind eye anymore, and I can't imagine not trying to contribute. I have a fresh Biochem degree but I'm not opposed to going back for something else. It seems like there are so many things that need to be studied I'm having trouble pinpointing/deciding on a topic that would be beneficial, that I could choose to pursue. I was wondering if any of the learned goons of this thread had an idea of specific fields(or courses) that I could work in to contribute directly, and have an impact. I'm an Ottawa goon which means anything environment related(or any science really) has been completely gutted, or will be soon, so I'm worried about actually getting work and/or experience. Basically I gots somewhat of a brain that I want to dedicate long term towards a solution. If possible, being able to eat at the same time would be a huge plus. If I had a freshly minted biochem degree and the interests you expressed I might explore algae. Here is an article from Ottawa. It's about five years old, but the authors are probably still there. Maybe go talk with them and find out if there are local efforts where you can work. http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Biofuels%20from%20Microalgae.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
I asked in the D&D Book Thread and had little luck and I was wondering if anyone could recommend some essential books on climate change, climate science, or other related ecological topics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Yes, I didn't mean to endorse the 'solution'. Another problem with it is that it suggests environmentalists had better shut up, because we're putting people who don't like us off. It's a kind of triangulation, which dooms you in the long term. The deniers tactic, turning the science argument into an authority argument, is for me the decisive point. This has been extremely damaging not just in the climate change issue but demonstrates fundamental misconceptions about science that are very hard to overcome. After that, the only way back is to overturn the authority, and of course that creates its own problems. You have this split between those who are convinced by evidence and those who are convinced by authority and you can't unify them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
err posted:I asked in the D&D Book Thread and had little luck and I was wondering if anyone could recommend some essential books on climate change, climate science, or other related ecological topics. I think one of the better ones to start with would be: Storms of My Grandchildren. There are also a few related books in that Wikipedia link, though I've not read them so can't comment on how good they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
err posted:I asked in the D&D Book Thread and had little luck and I was wondering if anyone could recommend some essential books on climate change, climate science, or other related ecological topics. If it's climate change and its impact you're interested in, Australia's Climate Commission does a good job with it's reports: http://climatecommission.gov.au/resources/commission-reports/ Some of it's local to Australia, but most of their content is globally applicable. They were formed specifically to communicate this information to the public, so it's pretty easy to understand. They answer questions too - got this reply the other day, in regards to max temps and human survival: quote:Dear Ronald Nixon, Ronald Nixon fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Jul 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
err posted:I asked in the D&D Book Thread and had little luck and I was wondering if anyone could recommend some essential books on climate change, climate science, or other related ecological topics. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm err The above leads to a comprehensive exposition of the fact and concept of global warming as viewed from an historical perspective. It may lead to more info. than you want or need but is truly comprehensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
The good news is that giant tornado that has been ripping up the arctic ice is finally gone. The bad news is that it's likely to be replaced by a giant "heat dome" that could possibly melt the rest of it. Anyone know enough about this stuff to verify how accurate it is? http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
err posted:I asked in the D&D Book Thread and had little luck and I was wondering if anyone could recommend some essential books on climate change, climate science, or other related ecological topics. Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. I like this book because it emphasizes the problems that this poo poo is causing right now, in parts of the world that don't get the coverage. We joke about First World Problems, but it's true, of course, and in a book like this the simplicity of some of the problems down there make them more compelling. It's too hot. My cow is gonna die. My family will die if we don't move or get another cow. The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World. This is an interesting read but a little naive, and I don't know that it succeeds in mapping out any realistic solutions. Personally, though, I'm in the camp that we're not going to pull out of this thing without massive loss of life and a serious restructuring of poo poo, and this book comforts me that it might turn out all right in the end. Climate Coverup: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Depressing and somewhat dated, but it's more about the methods employed to undermine climate change awareness, and those methods haven't changed much since its publication in 2009. Little shrill at points, but it's generally well done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
In non-news: the hockey-stick graph's validity has been re-re-re-confirmed, yet again, by even more extensive and precise measurements. Is this... even useful anymore? As far as I'm aware the historical data doesn't feed into climate projections, and I can't imagine there's anybody unconvinced by previous research who will be finally persuaded to take notice because of this. Is more fact-hunting a good use of time at this point, if those facts are beyond dispute yet not being acted on? In news-news: An iceberg as large as Hamburg has calved away from a glacier in Antarctica. [quoteOn 8 July 2013 a huge area of the ice shelf broke away from the Pine Island glacier, the longest and fastest flowing glacier in the Antarctic, and is now floating in the Amundsen Sea in the form of a very large iceberg. Scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute - Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research have been following this natural spectacle via the earth observation satellites TerraSAR-X from the German Space Agency (DLR) and have documented it in many individual images. The data is intended to help solve the physical puzzle of this "calving".[/quote] (Don't forget, Chasing Ice is now on Netflix if (like me) you haven't seen it yet!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Some videos from the AGU Chapman Conference on communicating climate science http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/agu-chapman-conference-on-climate-science-communication/ Michael Mann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2afzvRbeg Gavin Schmidt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axRU9Ljozvs There are a whole lot more and I haven't watched any but these two yet, but you can find them on that YouTube channel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
I have an otherwise reasonably intelligent friend who is not convinced climate change is a result of humans, someone have a nice link I can send him?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
reni89 posted:I have an otherwise reasonably intelligent friend who is not convinced climate change is a result of humans, someone have a nice link I can send him? Skeptical science is a good place to start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 11:55
|
|