|
Thank you. Sorry about first page no content post. Ummm.. How bad are wood fire places?
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
reni89 posted:Thank you. Sorry about first page no content post. That depends on which angle you are looking at them from. Burning wood is much like burning tobacco, with all the toxic compounds given off and inhaled by people both in the room and even your neighbours. The less green the wood (i.e. the longer it has been left to dry), the less it will give off toxic smoke, but if you are burning wood that has been dried through heating, that leads on to the second issue... If the wood did not come from your own property and/or it was dried by burning something else, then the carbon cost of transport and drying has to be taken into account. If the wood is coming from outside your property, is the source sustainable? Throughout the developing world, forests are slowly destroyed by scavenging for firewood; a major cause of deforestation, though by far not the biggest. And wood-fired stoves/heating are one of the major sources of smog in Asia, as they were in the developed world before clean air regulations came into place. If you gather your own wood from your own property and let it dry naturally, then having a wood fire will only be bad for your health and those of people nearby, and it will have a minimal contribution to smog, but not to climate change, as it is carbon neutral. If you buy wood, this is a bad thing, and sticking to electricity or oil or gas may or may not be better for local health and global CO2 levels - you would have to do an audit to be sure which is the least bad option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
What are you using the stove for? Here is a link on stove impact: http://www.cleancookstoves.org/our-work/the-solutions/cookstove-technology.html As noted it depends on fuel source. The most sustainable solution might be to set up a biomass alcohol still and stove, if you live someplace where agricultural biomass is locally available. This also gives you some other benefits. If you are on a farm yourself you can also run alcohol engines and set up a biomass exchange with neighbors. You can use the bio char to enrich the soil and for some sequestration. Otherwise a gasified or even a rocket stove with external venting can be good for locally sustainable wood. I also like these guys if you happen to be rural. You can use an alcohol power cube. http://opensourceecology.org/wiki
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:If you gather your own wood from your own property and let it dry naturally, then having a wood fire will only be bad for your health and those of people nearby, and it will have a minimal contribution to smog, but not to climate change, as it is carbon neutral. Much apologies, but your statement is not quite accurate: If you burn your own wood in a proper stove, you will not incur the noxious effects of breathing in the fine particulate matter in wood smoke as the combustion air escapes through the chimney. The challenge, as you mentioned earlier - is not when one person burns wood for heating purposes; but when many, many people burn wood for heating purposes in large numbers. Many municipalities have put restrictions, or outright bans, on traditional wood-burning stoves as whole-log burning has a negative impact on local air quality and smog production. Even rural areas (farms in particular) require burning permits as the smoke from the wood tends to escape much, much farther than it needs to go. There have been some changes, however. Pellet stoves create much less air pollution and particulate matter as the heat used to burn the wood is much, much hotter (there is no smoldering) and the wood is burned in smaller quantities. There are even wood-burning fireplaces that come equipped with a sort of catalytic converter to create a 2nd burn; reducing the amount of fine particulates that escape into the air.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Guigui posted:Much apologies, but your statement is not quite accurate: If you burn your own wood in a proper stove, you will not incur the noxious effects of breathing in the fine particulate matter in wood smoke as the combustion air escapes through the chimney. First things first, reni89 never mentioned a stove - he asked about fireplaces. I didn't mention this when Sogol answered in reference to stoves, as I didn't think it worth being pedantic, but since you bring it up again... The thing about wood smoke is that if you can smell it, you're inhaling particulates, cyclic/aromatic compounds, carbon monoxide and whatever else is being produced through burning. Just the fact that you can smell the smoke means that you are inhaling these things, and just because you like the smell of a wood fire, does not mean that it is safe to be exposed to the smoke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Yep is a fireplace. And yep it's wood from my cousins farm, so relatively sustainable. Glad to know I'm not killing the earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
A 50-Year Plan to Survive Climate Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SODaBMEJ2xQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Dystram posted:A 50-Year Plan to Survive Climate Change: Thanks for this. It feels like more of what we already know (we are so screwed) with, I guess, a dash of hope. If you can call that future hopeful. Worth considering the advice, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
I just watched Gasland 2. In my opinion there was a pretty powerful line near the end "Environmentalists only ever get temporary victories, but the losses are always permanent"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Well it's comforting to think that after the 1% has killed the whole human race because it turns out the human brain is warped by wealth and capitalism is maladaptive, the Earth will recover fairly rapidly. Really the upcoming mass extinction will be nothing but a blip in the fossil record. I imagine some interesting things will come along to take over all the ecological niches we've wiped out. Maybe cephalopods will experience a renaissance once the fish are all dead and the oceans are dominated by jellyfish?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Finding this thread almost 2 years ago was depressing in of itself, but the fact that changes seem to be occurring more rapidly and worse than originally projected has really been a mood darkener. No one seems to be making any meaningful moves to prevent disaster on a large scale, dooming much of the planet in the process. I've changed my lifestyle significantly, but even going a step further by moving north and growing in a larger, more localized community feels fruitless. When resources really start drying up, it's hard to see how people won't become desperate to survive. That's not a comforting thought. Another, what, 20 years at best before poo poo really starts hitting the fan? I just might make it to 50 if that's the case, but the prospect of starvation or getting torn apart for having food doesn't sit all that well if I manage to get farther. I'm sure this all seems a little crazy, but really, report after report paints an increasingly bleak picture. How is everyone else managing to cope? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je0_LKQQdng tmfool fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
If it makes you feel better, the human brain's pleasure system is self-regulating. You'll feel about as okay in the horrifying future as you do now. But it's still not time to consider political violence! Someone might go to jail! Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:If it makes you feel better, the human brain's pleasure system is self-regulating. You'll feel about as okay in the horrifying future as you do now. By all means, post your devious schemes to assassinate oil executives 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
You can give up, or you can find local/regional/national/inernational organizations with goals that you agree with and start working with them. Make changes in your own lifestyle, try to push your community in a positive direction. Institutional changes (which we need, fundamentally) can start from the bottom-up but they require changes in our attitudes towards how we live. If - it's a big if - we get through this without too much death and destruction, the world may very well be a better place than it is now. If you need something positive to latch on to, try that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:If it makes you feel better, the human brain's pleasure system is self-regulating. You'll feel about as okay in the horrifying future as you do now. Being an Internet Tough Guy for climate change isn't really much better than being an Internet Tough Guy about 0bummer in the freep thread. All you're going to do is get on an FBI watchlist, and the very fact that you're here talking about it means you're not going to do poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
While I have no intention of getting violent over this problem, the fact remains that eventually this will cause a lot of violence, both from radical groups in some countries, state violence in return, and eventually wars between desperate countries. It may come down to needing violence to get things to change, and if it does then I doubt democracy will survive. That should be motivation enough to start getting serious about the issue, but I don't think that this really has sunk in for most people yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:While I have no intention of getting violent over this problem, the fact remains that eventually this will cause a lot of violence, both from radical groups in some countries, state violence in return, and eventually wars between desperate countries. No need for such leaps of causality: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/73683/Egypt/Politics-/President-Morsi-calls-for-Egyptian-unity-in-face-o.aspx quote:The president also stressed that Egypt would not be distracted from its mission to protect its borders, water resources and land by post-revolution political turbulence or economic challenges. "We will defend each drop of Nile water with our blood if necessary," he warned. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/ethiopia-rejects-egyptian-protests-nile-dam quote:"Nothing is going to stop the Renaissance Dam. Not a threat will stop it," Getachew Reda said via telephone. "None of the concerns the Egyptian politicians are making are supported by science. Some of them border on what I would characterise as fortune-telling."
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
The hostility at the mere suggestion that violence maybe should be discussed as an option in the most radically leftist conversation space i know of shows how doomed the environmentalist movement really is. Actually maybe this should be a thread in itself analyzing the efficacy of political violence in itself. I feel like the vast majority of people in the west dismiss it out of hand, and yet there are a long litany of successful violent political movements in the 20th century and even more in the 19th. Are we ready to assert that violence as a tool of political change is defunct in the 21st century, or in the west, or in the us? With the increasing concentration of wealth throughout all the developed world, coupled with globalized capital, were seeing neoliberal policies increasingly result in a starkly binary decision-making calculus of Us vs Them, where we are the vast majority of the world population and They are an arbitrarily selected and poorly defined bunch of global super wealthy. And they are getting the benefits of the political and economic decisions. Not since the era of monarchy has the decision-making system of the world been so obviously fixed in such a consistent manner, and yet it's hard to see what if anything can be done via legal channels, just as in 1848 or what have you. I wonder if it isn't time to reexamine 20th century assumptions about political participation as the politics of the 21st century becomes increasingly different. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
I am a very active proponent of non-violence. My reason is very simple. Violence is how we got here. It will not get us out. Of course it is more complicated than that. Freire suggests that in a system of oppression, the revelation of pre-existing and violent structures of oppression, which have been taken as 'naturally' existing, can manifest as violence in the first instances of being seen for what they are. That is, reasonable and commensurate response to such structure may look violent as it matches and unpins the structure. Freire frames this revelatory and emancipatory action as an act of love and compassion made by the oppressed with respect to the oppressor and themselves. On the other hand Gene Sharp points out that any explicitly violent response is a response where the system of oppression is strongest, and therefore strategically inadvisable. In the appendix to FDTD he lists around 250 different 'methods' consistent with non-violence. Personally, I feel collapse is already occurring and that our Holocenic models of reality are incommensurate with the planetary conditions we ourselves are creating. Collectively speaking, we are delusional, since these models no longer match reality and yet we not only insist on them, we imagine that amplifying them will get us out of our current dilemma. ('We' are people still participating in and imaging returns from the modern industrialized/consumer social contracts.) As a result of this conviction on my part, I spend all my time working on globally informed local resilience and social fabric. While engaged in this, I am also divesting myself from participation and cooperation as thoroughly as I am able, while still working on local resilience and social fabric. It is a pretty good, liveable mix between the real divestment and the work to generate localized social fabric and fulfilling ways of being that honor the human motion of emancipation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Actually maybe this should be a thread in itself analyzing the efficacy of political violence in itself. Splendid idea! Start by punching yourself for a stupid derail attempt. Or go punch Arkane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I am a very active proponent of non-violence. My reason is very simple. Violence is how we got here. It will not get us out. I'm an advocate of non-violence too, but this is a non sequitur. quote:Of course it is more complicated than that. Freire suggests that in a system of oppression, the revelation of pre-existing and violent structures of oppression, which have been taken as 'naturally' existing, can manifest as violence in the first instances of being seen for what they are. That is, reasonable and commensurate response to such structure may look violent as it matches and unpins the structure. Freire frames this revelatory and emancipatory action as an act of love and compassion made by the oppressed with respect to the oppressor and themselves. Is, "If the system itself is already violent you might need to do something they call violent to get rid of it, but it's really loving and compassionate" a fair restatement of this? If so, how does that square with your "violence will not get us out" statement above? quote:On the other hand Gene Sharp points out that any explicitly violent response is a response where the system of oppression is strongest, and therefore strategically inadvisable. Can you rephrase this? I don't know whether he claims that violence makes the system you're fighting against stronger, if it's some "violence begets violence" statement, or what. Is he saying that there's one overall "oppression" and anyone being violent for any reason contributes to it? It's really not clear. Also, "non-violence" is difficult to define. On one hand Gandhi said "poverty is the worst kind of violence", but also denounced workers on strike as "violent" so it's a rather arbitrary label. quote:Personally, I feel collapse is already occurring and that our Holocenic models of reality are incommensurate with the planetary conditions we ourselves are creating. Collectively speaking, we are delusional, since these models no longer match reality and yet we not only insist on them, we imagine that amplifying them will get us out of our current dilemma. ('We' are people still participating in and imaging returns from the modern industrialized/consumer social contracts.) As a result of this conviction on my part, I spend all my time working on globally informed local resilience and social fabric. While engaged in this, I am also divesting myself from participation and cooperation as thoroughly as I am able, while still working on local resilience and social fabric. It is a pretty good, liveable mix between the real divestment and the work to generate localized social fabric and fulfilling ways of being that honor the human motion of emancipation. I'm not sure what precisely you mean by "working on globally informed local resilience and social fabric" -- what, exactly, do you do? Are you organizing political organizations, "spreading awareness", writing a blog, or what? OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I'm an advocate of non-violence too, but this is a non sequitur. This is illustrative from Sharp. Gene Sharp posted:People in many countries have experienced decades or even centuries of oppression, whether of domestic or foreign origin. Frequently, unquestioning submission to authority figures and rulers has been long inculcated. In extreme cases, the social, political, economic, and even religious institutions of the society — outside of state control — have been deliberately weakened, subordinated, or even replaced by new regimented institutions used by the state or ruling party to control the society. The population has often been atomized (turned into a mass of isolated individuals) unable to work together to achieve freedom, to confide in each other, or even to do much of anything at their own initiative. This is a bit about the dilemma from Friere. Freire posted:This, then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both. Any attempt to "soften" the power of the oppressor in deference to the weakness of the oppressed almost always manifests itself in the form of false generosity; indeed, the attempt never goes beyond this. In order to have the continued opportunity to express their "generosity," the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this "generosity," which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. That is why the dispensers of false generosity become desperate at the slightest threat to its source. As to what I 'do', I spent many years working with corporations to create instances of 'benevolent transition'. Although the individual efforts were viewed favorably, I would say the overall endeavor was a failure. In the early '00s I started dismantling all that and my participation in it as thoroughly as possible, without becoming a prepper or living in a cave. For some years now I have worked in local community organization and educational reform mostly at the university level. I have helped start active food, water, energy, etc. coalitions immediately where I now live. I facilitate large townhalls and invest a lot of time in capacity building including dialog, decision making, organizational structure, non-violence and conflict resolution. We pair these examples of social fabric with student teams. Our funding comes from the NSF and is based on research to understand what sort of transformational process and journey are required for faculty to instantiate collaborative, community based learning in a system that neither supports nor promotes that. In addition to 'collapse' the work is based on the premise that current educational system within the industrialized social contracts is not preparing current generations for the world they will inherit. This involves understanding the inability of nation-states and corporate hegemony to deal with planetary issues. Though the community organizing has, and must have, an authentic purpose and practice where I live, it is also about developing the capacity for such localization and resilience. I am mostly, but not exclusively, focused in STEM based disciplines. The work is intended to be primarily emancipatory in nature, with a great deal of emphasis on compassion. This localized action is based on an assumption of collapse and design responses grounded in work like Holling and Gunderson, e.g.: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art24/ Sogol fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
tmfool posted:Finding this thread almost 2 years ago was depressing in of itself, but the fact that changes seem to be occurring more rapidly and worse than originally projected has really been a mood darkener. No one seems to be making any meaningful moves to prevent disaster on a large scale, dooming much of the planet in the process. I've changed my lifestyle significantly, but even going a step further by moving north and growing in a larger, more localized community feels fruitless. When resources really start drying up, it's hard to see how people won't become desperate to survive. That's not a comforting thought. It seems like you guys are becoming more and more detached from the science of climate change. Changes are not happening "worse than originally projected." The reverse is true. Global temperature has been in stasis for over a decade, far below the predictions of climate models (leading to arguments about *WHY* the models have been so wrong). The very latest model from the Hadley Centre in the UK (the blue line below) predicts the temperature out to 2018. If that prediction is accurate, graduates of high school in 2018 (born in 2000 or 2001) will not have had any global warming in their entire lifetime. This is not some Mannian math trick to hide the incline. It would be 18 years of an undeniable 0 trend in climate, in a time period when GHG emissions are increasing faster than expected. Our observations would seem to imply a FAR LESS sensitive global climate than was previously assumed.  Additionally, Sanders in the youtube you posted talks about floods and droughts, but we have not found a causal link between GHGs and changes in flooding or droughts. From the draft copy of IPCC AR5 (chapter 2): quote:8 In summary, analyses continue to support the AR4 and SREX conclusions that it is likely that there have
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Oh look, Arkane posted - the goalposts must be moving again. Figure 5 from the link below is pretty clear about what HADGEM3 is forecasting.
I wish you would stop abusing models (which scientists are more than glad to talk about) in order to push a narrow point of view. edit: oh you're right - I must have mixed up figure 1 and figure 5. Needless to say, you should read the whole thing, because Watt's Up With That? isn't a great source when they selectively edit graphs. edit2: by the way, selectively editing graphs is model-abuse. In no way ever would I imply you got close enough to a model to abuse him or her. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Oh look, Arkane posted - the goalposts must be moving again. Figure 5 from the link below is pretty clear about what HADGEM3 is forecasting. Kafka, figure 5 has nothing to do with HadGEM3; figure 5 shows HadCM3, an older (and different) model than HadGEM3 (which itself is featured in Figure 1). Figure 5 is simply comparing the 2011 and 2012 iterations of the HadCM3 model -- it indicates that recent observational data would have decreased their predictions using the older model. All 3 of their most recent models are featured in the graph that I posted, and are clearly colored. The model in red from 2010 is what was submitted to AR5. You will notice that their forecast for the year 2018 has dropped by .5C in the past 2 years based on new observational data and updates to their modeling. PS: No models were abused or harmed in the creation of my post. Arkane fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The hostility at the mere suggestion that violence maybe should be discussed as an option in the most radically leftist conversation space i know of shows how doomed the environmentalist movement really is. My hostility is due to the fact that the suggestion that violence is necessary is a conversational dead end. You clearly believe it is, and your despair seems such that I doubt any argument would persuade you. And even if I were to agree, the conversation still dies because the logical next point is to talk about how we might best go about said violence, and that discussion is criminal, or at least not fit for a public forum like this. Which is why I said that for all your holier than thou agitating, you're not going to do poo poo. Someone who actually believed violence was necessary wouldn't likely be dumb enough to blather about it on a forum, paywall or no. quote:Actually maybe this should be a thread in itself analyzing the efficacy of political violence in itself. I feel like the vast majority of people in the west dismiss it out of hand, and yet there are a long litany of successful violent political movements in the 20th century and even more in the 19th. Are we ready to assert that violence as a tool of political change is defunct in the 21st century, or in the west, or in the us? With the increasing concentration of wealth throughout all the developed world, coupled with globalized capital, were seeing neoliberal policies increasingly result in a starkly binary decision-making calculus of Us vs Them, where we are the vast majority of the world population and They are an arbitrarily selected and poorly defined bunch of global super wealthy. And they are getting the benefits of the political and economic decisions. Not since the era of monarchy has the decision-making system of the world been so obviously fixed in such a consistent manner, and yet it's hard to see what if anything can be done via legal channels, just as in 1848 or what have you. I wonder if it isn't time to reexamine 20th century assumptions about political participation as the politics of the 21st century becomes increasingly different. I agree with the post above. If you want to talk about political violence, make a thread for it. This thread is about climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Splendid idea! Start by punching yourself for a stupid derail attempt. Or go punch Arkane. Oops badly phrased I meant maybe this discussion should have its own thread, not take over this one. TheBalor posted:My hostility is due to the fact that the suggestion that violence is necessary is a conversational dead end. You clearly believe it is, and your despair seems such that I doubt any argument would persuade you. A: No I don't believe that, but when you can't even suggest talking about something with this kind of hostility it's hard to communicate what your beliefs actually are! Especially when you're trying to figure out what they are but nobody will talk about it. B: I find this kind of contempt hilarious whenever it crops up on D&D. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oops badly phrased I meant maybe this discussion should have its own thread, not take over this one. Arglebargle III, you're a loving idiot. Are you seriously proposing posting a thread to discuss whether violence (murder, arson, terrorism?) is a valid method to achieve your desired society?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:Arglebargle III, you're a loving idiot. Are you seriously proposing posting a thread to discuss whether violence (murder, arson, terrorism?) is a valid method to achieve your desired society? Hey, now, we can have a civilised discussion over everything  .
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 09:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:Arglebargle III, you're a loving idiot. Are you seriously proposing posting a thread to discuss whether violence (murder, arson, terrorism?) is a valid method to achieve your desired society? Wow, are people this cowed that discussing this sort of thing makes you nervous? People are allowed to discuss questions like that. It happens every day, all over. I have a poli sci degree, my focus was revolutions. We managed to discuss revolutions without blowing anything up or killing anybody. I even managed to attend class without overthrowing the professor and killing the other students! How do you guys ever manage to have a discussion about nonviolence without peeing yourselves because someone might bring up violence as a counterexample? Did you hide under a desk as a little kid when it was time to discuss scary George Washington and Sam Adams and their unconscionable decisions? I'm completely serious, this pushback is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow, are people this cowed that discussing this sort of thing makes you nervous? People are allowed to discuss questions like that. It happens every day, all over. I have a poli sci degree, my focus was revolutions. We managed to discuss revolutions without blowing anything up or killing anybody. I even managed to attend class without overthrowing the professor and killing the other students! Don't change the subject. Discussing historic revolutions is an entirely different ballgame than discussing what the best strategy is to bomb Exxon's corporate headquarters or something. You're making a mockery of your earlier posts which are pretty drat clear: a serious consideration of violent tactics is on the table to combat climate change. The 18th century isn't the 21st century, by the way. Today there are governments who just love to crackdown on terrorism and I have no doubt that whatever you wish to pursue, it'll be classified as terrorism. Your proposals are ridiculous, knowing the insane amount of power you're up against. Not to mention you're outgunned and outnumbered so even if you manage to do something then you'll be caught and you can enjoy the rest of your life in a supermax prison.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Okay, well, you can laugh about it in another thread. I don't know what you expect to accomplish out of debate though since a thesis of "you are a loving idiot" isn't likely to produce agreement. Maybe you can take your thesis about political violence to the new thread if the thought of discussion doesn't terrify you too much.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
Hey don't worry, good news! according to some research the heat trapped in world's oceans won't probably get released anytime soon: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-us-once-again/ 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
Man, I came to this thread to find out exactly how hosed we are as a species, and instead I'm reading some bullshit about why we should murder oil executives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
But didn't that work with France's revolution? Off with everyone's heads!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Changes are not happening "worse than originally projected." The reverse is true. Global temperature has been in stasis for over a decade, far below the predictions of climate models (leading to arguments about *WHY* the models have been so wrong). gently caress you Arkane. Also ITT: D&D mod promises worthless even when written down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Though I don't feel it in any way useful to propose some sort of violent 'solution' to climate change, I also feel that violence can't simply be ignored. If you believe that climate effects are related to means of production, then a great deal of violence is already present, and not just human to human violence. Additionally, if you imagine such planetary changes are taking place, what do you imagine as outcomes? Do you imagine some degree of linear status quo? Do you imagine some degree of discontinuity? If so, how much and expressed in what ways? We are screwed because the current means of producing a delusional lifestyle in industrial/consumer social contracts is also producing climate change. We are also screwed because global inequity is intimately tied to that means of production and resource distribution. That system is effecting planetary systems including the food system. Production of the consumer society is already violent and based on violence. Interruption of the agrarian underpinnings, whether institutionally, or by changes in the environment is often a source of and used as a justification for violence and revolution. In both the US and China climate change and resource distribution are seen as one of the major risks to national security. The Chinese have believed for some time that in response to resource crisis, particularly fossil fuels, that the US will simply place fleets on the major shipping routes and commandeer resources. Most corporations already have in place strategic responses to climate effects, in some cases such as shipping, these include profit models based on the effects. Nation-state governance in the industrialized societies is proving woefully inadequate to addressing complex planetary conditions. Yet, at the personal and community levels considerations of the consequences, adaptation and mitigation are mostly non-existent if you are not living on a low lying island. If you begin to consider consequences you also have to consider your relationship to the current violence and the possibility of both localized and globalized violence. The three general scenarios used in thinking about this mix are often: - mad max, in which social fabrics and contracts are torn - free market and technological miracles that somehow mitigate negative effects while allowing the delusional life as consumer (being as having) to continue - social transformation, which is itself a non-linear phenomena Mad Max is likely pretty violent in very localized ways. I do not feel it is worth preparing for. Basically preparation would mean becoming some sort of survivalist prepper and I am not willing to turn my life over to the animation of that. I do feel it is a very smart thing to be involved in the local, rather than globalized, production of your own life as thoroughly as possible, but this is not based on some personal survivalist strategy. I feel that our current means of production, that are creating the phenomena, are unlikely to provide a meaningful solution since that underlying model of the world is already intimately connected to the problematized phenomena. The most likely outcome is an amplification of those same conditions. This is likely to include an amplification of violence, particularly with respect to resource use and allocation. So I spend my time on non-violent social transformation, when and where I am able to do so authentically. This is in great part because I feel that the current means are based on the active production of 'other' as enemy and rely on that production to function. Response contextualized by violence is an active response in that same system and much more likely to reinforce it than undermine it or create any positive change. It is also related, as I said, to the way in which natural, self balancing, systems respond to collapse and building the local capacity for such resilience. Additionally, regardless of climate change, I feel this is worthwhile way to spend the energy of my life. Sogol fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:Don't change the subject. Discussing historic revolutions is an entirely different ballgame than discussing what the best strategy is to bomb Exxon's corporate headquarters or something. You're making a mockery of your earlier posts which are pretty drat clear: a serious consideration of violent tactics is on the table to combat climate change. I'm not going to bother checking it, but I've heard the Niger delta insurgency has been effective at reducing local petroleum output, although admittedly that has come at the cost of even more oil spills.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:gently caress you Arkane. Basically any post like his can be addressed with this: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Here is a quote from your link to address what I had posted: quote:The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely. We're at 13 years presently (2001-2013) and using the Met's own simulations, we'll be at 18 years with a ~0 trend in 2018. The use of the words "not uncommon" and "unlikely" are also a bit meaningless since they don't have probabilities attached to them. Here is a numerical take from an AR5 Lead Author when asked the specific question: quote:SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Under 2 percent. If you want to put your fingers in your ears and just ignore the science/math Deleuzionist, sure, fine. Whether I make a post or whether I do not make a post doesn't change the fact that there is a prolonged 0 trend in climate data for which scientists are searching for an explanation (with the most common explanation other than low climate sensitivity now being that the warming has occurred in the deep ocean). So when someone posts something so far afield from reality such that they are actively IN DENIAL of the current science & observations (the post that I was responding to said that "changes seem to be occurring more rapidly and worse than originally projected"), then I feel like I should point that out. This is a forum for discussion. If you want a one-way propaganda board where you can opine on the imminent death of the human species, I am sure there are plenty of loony toon blogs out there my man. The observations tell us that global warming is happening, but far slower than the models expected. Perhaps if the issue weren't so politicized such that people have been transformed into violence-promoting super alarmists like our friend Arglebagargle, then we could discuss solutions more rationally. ANIME AKBAR posted:Basically any post like his can be addressed with this: What is your point? Nothing in that graph is in dispute. (It's also 3 years old.) Arkane fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 03:43
|
|