|
blowfish posted:Actually, it's like 0.05 percent of the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2, or 0.1% if the world turns into 'merica. Obviously not good, but nowhere near catastrophic or even at the level of suck facing us with current best case climate change scenarios. This article actually agrees with me. You've also done some math wrong or seriously misread something, because he calculates the impact at 1/40th the impact (2.5%) of atmospheric carbon. You're off on the low end by like an order of magnitude and change. And that's not even beginning to factor in other greenhouse gasses or albedo or anything else that is encompassed in "climate change". quote:First, let’s recap the key numbers about global energy balance from p20: the average solar power absorbed by atmosphere, land, and oceans is 238 watts per square metre (W/m2); doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration would effectively increase the net heating by 4 W/m2. I was specifically working from a misreading that we could increase everyone to first-world consumption, and even increase that level by a factor of 10, and that level would not be an overall contributor to global warming. What your own article states is that if we normalized the entire planet to the present European average, it would be a small but perceptible increase in global warming. If you increase that by another factor of ten, things will start getting ugly real quick. By his numbers it would represent about (10 * 1/40th) or ~25% of the impact of global CO2, which is of the same order of magnitude as my numbers based on solar energy (56%). The difference is that he normalized everything to a Europe-level average, whereas I used the US number. The difference is just about a factor of 2, which is also roughly how much more energy Americans use than Europeans. Even if we work from the "10x current global energy utilization" baseline instead of "10x first-world-normalized baseline" you're still talking about a 3-4x increase from his figure. So figure that your scenario would represent warming impact equal to a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon or something like that, double if we're talking normalizing to the US. We obviously operate on such a large scale that our resource harvesting and pollution can have significant environmental impact, why is it unthinkable that waste heat is starting to become a significant product as well? It's an inevitable byproduct of civilization, all energy eventually ends up as heat and we have a big vacuum bottle around our planet. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Sep 23, 2013 |
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Has anyone ever tried to seriously and in a non-biased fashion grapple with the problem of very limited hard data regarding global temperatures? Every time I read a treatment of this issue (or non-issue, depending on who you read), I am struck by the huge leaps of logic that seem to underpin the arguments. Insofar as I understand it, reliable temperature records go back only a century or so and those were only in a few civilized locations until even more recently. Measurement of the ice sheets is even more recent. People talk about using ice-coring and tree rings to get data from before recent times, but how accurate can those really be, especially when compared to a dataset of actual temperature readings from hundreds of spots around the world, every day of the year? The planet has seen hundreds of millions of years worth of weather (billions if you include the early molten metal/cooling days), and we have hard data from about a hundred years of that incredibly long history. If the timeline of the planet's weather history is as long as a yardstick, then our records are, what, a half a piece of dust sitting on the end of that yardstick? Less, even? Anyone who's tried to fire a rifle at a long distance target knows that a very minor deviation (loose scope, muzzle heat, buildup in the barrel) that had little impact at close range can lead to a full-on miss as you move to 300 yards and more. That's the issue I am concerned with here. Are people filling in the (apparently huge) gaps in their data with factual assumptions that, if even very slightly off, could drastically contaminate their projections?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Finndo posted:Has anyone ever tried to seriously and in a non-biased fashion grapple with the problem of very limited hard data regarding global temperatures? Every time I read a treatment of this issue (or non-issue, depending on who you read), I am struck by the huge leaps of logic that seem to underpin the arguments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Are you asking a question about how they get the data, or are you asking whether global warming is happening? He's asking how people know that data collected at a given point on the earth (eg,, Greenland) is representative of global climate rather than just that particular area's climate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He's asking how people know that data collected at a given point on the earth (eg,, Greenland) is representative of global climate rather than just that particular area's climate. This, and also the obvious follow-on questions to test the method, such as how accurate the methods are to guess at past temperatures, and how people have tested/estimated the accuracy of those methods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:But ah, given the specific wording of your post and the analogies used, I should probably say even given the myriad uncertainties the paleoclimate evidence is real fukn emphatic that increases in atmospheric co2 can/do contribute to, amplify, or cause global temperature increases. Well I guess that begs the same question as to the accuracy of estimates of atmospheric co2 in the past at any given time, too. Further to your post above, I did some poking around, found some general info regarding proxies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record At the risk of digressing, I found this graph really interesting: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg I suppose the quadrillion dollar question is: are we on the same cycle that has repeated itself every 100k years or so on that graph, or is this time different, such that we going to take off like a Wonkavator and blow right past all historical peaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Finndo posted:Has anyone ever tried to seriously and in a non-biased fashion grapple with the problem of very limited hard data regarding global temperatures? Every time I read a treatment of this issue (or non-issue, depending on who you read), I am struck by the huge leaps of logic that seem to underpin the arguments. Common proxies for temperature include:
These proxies are not just guesswork, and research shows exactly how accurate they are (accurate). We can match historical records to these proxies and see how well they line up. Once we've confirmed a proxy works, it can be then used in turn to check other proxies. When all proxies agree with each other and direct observations, we know they're accurate. Scientists have done plenty of work verifying any proxies that they use for looking at climates. Obviously, the farther back we go, the less resolution we have and the greater the margin of error is, but those are also accounted for. Finndo posted:At the risk of digressing, I found this graph really interesting: Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
MatCauthon posted:I went back and read through all your posts ITT, which are great and very informative by the way, but I'm wondering if you can elaborate more or maybe recommend some reading material on how to build durable, effective mass movements. I study climate change, environmental sustainability and the like in school as part of an International Relations program and honestly it's depressing to see just how little is being done or even widely discussed in regards to actually dealing with these issues in a way that doesn't gently caress over half the planet. And I'm extremely tired of seeing slacktivism and social media-centric campaigns to try to accomplish anything, none of which seem to actually DO anything. I guess what it boils down to is what would be the best way to get people informed (including dispelling damaging popular beliefs), fired up, and actually motivated to do more than just recycle or use low energy light bulbs in their homes? I know those things are feel good, micro level efforts that are accessible to most people, but the smug sense of accomplishment that comes with it is astounding to me and such efforts are effectively useless in the long run. Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. I haven't read a ton of books specifically on this subject, but one I would recommend is Labor's Giant Step, which goes into the labor movement of the 30s and the battles that helped build unions and the worker's movement. I also found The Bending Cross, a biography of Eugene Debs, fascinating, and it gives some insight into the labor movement prior, though that's not the focus of the book. I'm not too sure what good books about the civil rights movement or other mass movements are, as I haven't had too much time recently to read much. That said, from what I have read (articles usually, not books), mass movements tend to be spontaneous, but their endurance and success is dependent on strong foundations of goals, organization, and persistence. For example, Rosa Parks was not the first person to get arrested for sitting in the front of the bus, but that was the catalyst that ended up leading to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. In order to work, though, there needed to be the huge amount of activists and organizations like the NAACP and WPC to help spark it and fight for it. However, the organization alone couldn't do it, either. You need people in the streets, too. We can look at examples of failed mass movements, too. There are plenty of activist organizations that have programs that are popular, good, but have no mass of people behind them; they're disconnected from people's everyday life, so they never get off the ground. Many socialist organizations in the US are an example of that. Then you have movements like the Wisconsin uprising 2011, where around 100,000 people occupied the capital. One union was the catalyst, but all of a sudden you have huge amounts of people who normally wouldn't be involved in activism out in the streets protesting. However, it had no guidance, no strong foundation, and the Democrats were able to co-opt the movement into a recall campaign (which of course failed because the Dem's candidate was awful). Or you can look at Occupy, which had immense amounts of energy that started with a few protests in New York and led to a national epidemic of huge protests all over. Again, though, it had poor tactics, lofty goals with no transitional steps, and was largely unguided. Eventually, it died down, having not accomplished nearly as much as it could have. Basically, your goal should be to build an organization with a good program, good tactics, that is constantly reaching out to people trying to build education and protests. Aim for small goals first, then use those to build towards bigger goals. I think for environmental movements specifically, it's especially important to tie in economic issues such as low wages and lack of jobs, which I why I like the Green Jobs idea so much. It connects people to something they can directly relate to. Unfortunately, there's no easy way that I know of to get thousands of people in the streets. Just keep being persistent and building for it. Good activism is hard. There are going to be a lot of people who think driving a Prius and switching to florescent lights is all they need to do, though. I guess for them, keep trying. Emphasize the systemic nature of climate change, or how their low energy light bulb is still emitting dangerous amounts of carbon because it's powered by coal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:We can match historical records to these proxies and see how well they line up. Once we've confirmed a proxy works, it can be then used in turn to check other proxies. When all proxies agree with each other and direct observations, we know they're accurate. Scientists have done plenty of work verifying any proxies that they use for looking at climates. Obviously, the farther back we go, the less resolution we have and the greater the margin of error is, but those are also accounted for. When you say "historical records" do you mean accurate readings we have made in the last 100 years or so, or sort of general writings from Monks in the 1300's Also, I've always wondered what they use for proxies in desert regions? edit: Hmm reading through this http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm and some of the comments underneath, I think tree ring divergence has some issues, especially when you go back past 100+ years without having accurate information on the conditions of the time that could have affected tree ring growth. Illuminti fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:When you say "historical records" do you mean accurate readings we have made in the last 100 years or so, or sort of general writings from Monks in the 1300's Be honest how many hours have you spent listening to Glen Beck? You were in this thread before questioning the science. You didn't read what we gave you before. Why should we believe you'll be any different now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:The book also has a pretty interesting and accessible discussion of investigating atmospheric chemistry on human and geologic timescales. Thanks -- it does look interesting, I will try to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:When you say "historical records" do you mean accurate readings we have made in the last 100 years or so, or sort of general writings from Monks in the 1300's Illuminti posted:Also, I've always wondered what they use for proxies in desert regions? Illuminti posted:edit: Hmm reading through this http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm and some of the comments underneath, I think tree ring divergence has some issues, especially when you go back past 100+ years without having accurate information on the conditions of the time that could have affected tree ring growth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This article actually agrees with me. You've also done some math wrong or seriously misread something, because he calculates the impact at 1/40th the impact (2.5%) of atmospheric carbon. You're off on the low end by like an order of magnitude and change. And that's not even beginning to factor in other greenhouse gasses or albedo or anything else that is encompassed in "climate change". Looks like I misread a thing  Yeah, at this level it is more of a thing we should look out for. Considering considering that increasing the per capita energy consumption to ten times that of loving America still would stay in the ballpark of a quarter of our current effect, we should make sure to not consume ridiculous amounts of energy, but there is room for a gentle easing off instead of needing to do something yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 06:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Tanreall posted:Be honest how many hours have you spent listening to Glen Beck? You were in this thread before questioning the science. You didn't read what we gave you before. Why should we believe you'll be any different now? Apart from whatever clips they used to show on the Daily Show, none. I'm not an American. I've read plenty thanks, and I'm still not convinced of catastrophic climate change, or that the models can be treated as gospel. Anyway ignoring the hysterical screeching.... Uranium Phoenix posted:I meant accurate readings taken in recent history, but historical writings detailing volcanic eruptions, unusual warm/cold periods, extreme weather events, and so forth can also be useful. Having primary sources talking about the Medieval Warm Period in Europe can help corroborate other evidence. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Apart from whatever clips they used to show on the Daily Show, none. I'm not an American. I've read plenty thanks, and I'm still not convinced of catastrophic climate change, or that the models can be treated as gospel. Anyway ignoring the hysterical screeching.... Anyone that tells you they know what the large scale climate effects will be is lying. It's too chaotic. The models are rough estimates based on numerous assumptions. What we know for a fact is that more energy is being trapped within the Earth system, which is guaranteed to have an impact on life, including humans. How that is expressed is affected by hundreds of thousands of interacting feedback loops (hence the chaos). The changes ongoing are rapid, but it is within the realm of possibility that any number of long-term cycles will mitigate the immediate effects of a stronger greenhouse effect. But this is balanced by the possibility that rapid localized effects could occur, such as changes in oceanic circulation due to the very low meltwater of density. e: tl;dr Nobody really knows, but why not be prepared for a very real, very bad possibility. truavatar fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
truavatar posted:e: tl;dr Nobody really knows, but why not be prepared for a very real, very bad possibility. Because adaption would be less traumatic than prevention? Especially if the estimates for the rate and amount of warming keep getting revised down
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Because adaption would be less traumatic than prevention? Especially if the estimates for the rate and amount of warming keep getting revised down edit: nobody mentioned catastrophic climate change except you, now you want to play the wounded martyr about hysterical screaming? Give me a loving break, you weasel. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:"What if we made a better world for nothing?" I suppose that would depend on your definition of better. Maybe the fantasy greenpeace simple life isn't for everybody. And you're right, 90% of this thread isn't people talking about how they can barely get out of bed in the morning under the soul crushing weight of what they know is going to happen in the future. Tell me again how it's fine to tell me to gently caress off because "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, AND YOU ARE KILLING US ALLLLLLL BY NOT BEING CONVINCED THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Because adaption would be less traumatic than prevention? Especially if the estimates for the rate and amount of warming keep getting revised down Being prepared includes being prepared to adapt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Maybe the fantasy greenpeace simple life isn't for everybody. Tell us more  (specifically about the fantasy Greenpeace life, I want to see how deep the delusions go)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
truavatar posted:Being prepared includes being prepared to adapt. Agreed. But being prepared is a good thing if you have realistic expectations of what you are preparing for, the whole world going full Doomsday Prepper might not be a great idea if doomsday is not happening
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Agreed. But being prepared is a good thing if you have realistic expectations of what you are preparing for, the whole world going full Doomsday Prepper might not be a great idea if doomsday is not happening Surely you could find a post in this thread suggesting someone do that, right? I mean, I have my letter from Greenpeace right here next to me, but I never posted the contents. How did you find out? Just asking questions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Surely you could find a post in this thread suggesting someone do that, right? I mean, I have my letter from Greenpeace right here next to me, but I never posted the contents. How did you find out? Just asking questions. Are you asking me to find a post talking about how as a planet we need to make drastic cuts in our living standards to fight climate change? edit: greenpeace posted:Next we need to step up our use of clean energy like wind, wave, tidal and solar energy. Equally important is a new smart national power grid capable of integrating all these different sources. So that's from Greenpeace. A mad dash to do all these things is going to take a massive amount of resources away from other things. Things like welfare, foreign aid, other environmental issues not wound up in climate change, like pollution and conservation. Obviously as the estimates keep getting revised down we hear less of the doomsday scenarios that we heard a few years ago. Illuminti fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Are you asking me to find a post talking about how as a planet we need to make drastic cuts in our living standards to fight climate change? No, I'm asking you where you see someone advocating that, and I quote, "the whole world going full Doomsday Prepper" is a viable solution to climate change. You know, the Greenpeace plan you were talking about that we're all in on in a subtle attempt to take away your lifestyle that has no scientific backing and is more about making money for those dastardly scientists living the easy life off of grant funds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I suppose that would depend on your definition of better. Maybe the fantasy greenpeace simple life isn't for everybody. We're baking climate change into the system every moment that people like you grasp at every straw not to do anything. Let's adapt instead of drastically cut? What the gently caress is adapting if not turning around the fossil fuel system completely? Doing a little isn't enough if methane clathrates start melting, or if Greenland glaciers slide into the ocean, or a number of other feedback scenarios occur. A number of people in this thread are posting that there is a feeling of dread involved with confronting the monumental change that will have to happen in their lifetimes. You think they're wrong because you swallowed a denier line about "rates and amounts being revised down". Here's a key loving fact, they haven't revised anything down, you disingenuous twat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
What if all the science is wrong, though? Makes you think
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:So that's from Greenpeace. A mad dash to do all these things is going to take a massive amount of resources away from other things. Things like welfare, foreign aid, other environmental issues not wound up in climate change, like pollution and conservation. Or we could you know, use the money from the any one of the massive unnecessary national defense programs. Or you know, and I realize this is more of a sarcastic joke these days, raise taxes on the wealthy. Conservation, 'welfare', and foreign aid take up a comically small part of the budget, why would they be impacted (rhetorical, it's because the politicians you support and argue against are both more willing to cut funding to science/social programs than to actually deal with our fiscal issues in a responsible way) PS climate change is about pollution and conservation. CO2 is pollution and if we don't stop it, many of the hundreds of thousands of species you're trying to 'conserve' will be long gone. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:No, I'm asking you where you see someone advocating that, and I quote, "the whole world going full Doomsday Prepper" is a viable solution to climate change. You know, the Greenpeace plan you were talking about that we're all in on in a subtle attempt to take away your lifestyle that has no scientific backing and is more about making money for those dastardly scientists living the easy life off of grant funds. Kafka Esq. posted:This IS the mass extinction event, happening right now. Chances are that won't wipe all plants off the face of the earth though. I don't think models are really looking that far ahead. Vermain posted:I basically see the issue more as one of ideology than of anything else. During World War II, for example, the majority of people were very easily convinced to accept more meager living conditions with the idea that the amounts saved through rationing, etc. were being put towards the noble cause of fighting the War. Is this not the new sort of ideology that the left needs to find and articulate today? The sacrifice of a certain amount of economic power will be used to ensure a future societal stability and to protect our fragile ecological systems. Yiggy posted:Short of authoritarian regimes, how do we convince or even strong arm concerted global action? It's a total prisoners dilemma, but how do we guarantee against defectors or at least render them irrelevant? Is that possible given the size of some of these economies? Are there any workable solutions, not just temporary and unstable band aids, in the event of the US, China or India not playing ball? Dreylad posted:I'm weary of the argument too, because geoengineering wont save us. It'll help by keeping the temperature from activating positive feedbacks, but fundamentally we have to restructure our society and curb or outright eliminate consumer culture in order to cut emissions. Which will be a pretty significant economic kick in the pants. From randomly picked pages, posts variously claiming. Catastrophe, how to make people accept more meagre living conditions, possible dictatorship, and the fundamental restructuring of our society
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:From randomly picked pages, posts variously claiming. Catastrophe, how to make people accept more meagre living conditions, possible dictatorship, and the fundamental restructuring of our society Claiming catastrophe by saying we are in a mass extinction event, which by actual loss of biodiversity we are. Just because extinction sounds scary to you the poster isn't automatically shouting that all humans will be dead in X years. Talking about more meager living conditions, historically and possibilities in the future which is a good thing in terms of conservation. Possible dictatorship in what sounds like a dark joke kind of like "Short of nuclear fire how can we clean up New Jersey" in regards to the problem of getting everyone to agree on a topic. and fundamental restructuring of our society, which is a valid issue to discuss as society isn't perfect. I like how the posts you cherry picked are all more rational and relevant to the debate than yours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Or we could you know, use the money from the any one of the massive unnecessary national defense programs. Or you know, and I realize this is more of a sarcastic joke these days, raise taxes on the wealthy. Conservation, 'welfare', and foreign aid take up a comically small part of the budget, why would they be impacted (rhetorical, it's because the politicians you support and argue against are both more willing to cut funding to science/social programs than to actually deal with our fiscal issues in a responsible way) I would be fine with cutting spending on defence and spending it on other things, and taxing the wealthy more. I think science funding should get a huge boost. Just because I don't think AGW is going to wipe us out doesn't mean I'm a gun toting, republican anti abortionist who works in a hedge fund. That still doesn't mean I think a good way of spending it is the massive and immediate restructuring of our energy production and society. It would could a huge upheaval and we would be better served by a more considered response
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Space Crabs posted:Claiming catastrophe by saying we are in a mass extinction event, which by actual loss of biodiversity we are. Just because extinction sounds scary to you the poster isn't automatically shouting that all humans will be dead in X years. You can't cherry pick when someone has asked you to find specific examples!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:From randomly picked pages, posts variously claiming. Catastrophe, how to make people accept more meagre living conditions, possible dictatorship, and the fundamental restructuring of our society The problem being: A. None of those posts said what you claimed earlier, there is no centralized GreenPeace plan for dealing with climate change (a small aside- GreenPeace is a basically a huge corporate greenwashing machine, far from a hero in most environmentalist circles) B. There IS a mass extinction going on. This isn't like a point of opinion, but of extinction rates and scientific definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction This isn't him being dramatic, this is the actual science. If you want to dispute that, feel free (I've got my popcorn ready) C. Sacrificing individual wealth for the better of society is called being a good citizen, not a crazy treehugger. There's absolutely nothing wrong with reducing our per-capita resource consumption and it is a laudable goal. If you want to dispute that our resource consumption (not just carbon) isn't an issue, let's hear it. D. Yiggy is illustrating a big problem with climate change, it's a "global" issue but "global" politics is actually the sum of a very select group of nations who decide the policy moving forward. We in the US cannot stop China from emitting carbon and that's just the reality of the world we live in. A big problem with proposed solutions is that even if the US were to radically change it's carbon policies (I know, a joke) other large consumers of carbon could elect not to and we're in the same boat. I'd suggest you start actually reading posts and engaging the ideas put forth instead of assuming anyone who feels like we're experiencing a catastrophe (we are) is in on some kind of large-scale conspiracy to take away your standard of living. Stop "just asking questions" and start trying to actually learn something. Illuminti posted:I would be fine with cutting spending on defence and spending it on other things, and taxing the wealthy more. I think science funding should get a huge boost. Just because I don't think AGW is going to wipe us out doesn't mean I'm a gun toting, republican anti abortionist who works in a hedge fund. No, it just means you're scientifically ignorant. Congratulations on your great success! Also, try to stop arguing against straw men, I don't see this consensus in the thread of "AGW is going to wipe us out". Could it? Sure, you'd have to be a moron to understand the science and not see a possibility. Is it the most likely scenario? Of course not. Could it go down in our lifetimes? Of course not. quote:That still doesn't mean I think a good way of spending it is the massive and immediate restructuring of our energy production and society. It would could a huge upheaval and we would be better served by a more considered response We're still waiting for your 'considered response' None of us have ever considered anything, so I'm sure a higher intelligence such as yourself could cut through the quagmire and show us the errors in our ways.
a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The problem being: Oh for god's sake, the greenpeace comment was a throwaway bit of mild sarcasm, I can't believe anyone would seriously think it was other than that, would you prefer I replaced it with Friends of the Earth or the North American Yoghurt Weavers Association? Yes there is an extinction event going on, since 10,000BC. That post in a thread about climate change was clearly about climate change causing mass extinction, not refering to the holocene extinction I want everyone to have more and not restrict them. I'd rather bring people up to our level through innovation etc. Not bring us down. Wealth inequality is a big issue, but I'd rather have everyone level as near to the top as we can. I did engage, I asked some questions about proxies such as how they get them in desert regions and I made a comment about that, then i was called a loving idiot who watches Glen Back and a weasel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Oh for god's sake, the greenpeace comment was a throwaway bit of mild sarcasm, I can't believe anyone would seriously think it was other than that, would you prefer I replaced it with Friends of the Earth or the North American Yoghurt Weavers Association? You are absolutely incorrect. I can tell you with great confidence that Kafka made that comment talking about the exact same thing as me. That's because I know Kafka has been following this thread and understands the science(not that it takes much to figure out there's a mass extinction going on). When I see the words "mass extinction", it doesn't set off alarm bells in my head because I know that it's the literal truth. This is more of you choosing to see his argument as something it's not. Nothing he said was wrong, you just made up another half to his post in your head and decided that he was saying something he never said. I'm just curious as to why you feel all these scientists would be overblowing their own predictions. How is it that the consensus in the climate science community is so far removed from the consensus amongst the political community. Can you think of another issue where this exists where the people in the scientific half of things aren't the ones correct (medical marijuana comes to mind) quote:I want everyone to have more and not restrict them. I'd rather bring people up to our level through innovation etc. Not bring us down. Wealth inequality is a big issue, but I'd rather have everyone level as near to the top as we can. Even beyond carbon, do you think seven billion people consuming resources at the rate that Americans do is a realistic vision for the future? Climate change isn't about fixing wealth inequality (although if we had less inequality, we could probably better work on climate change), and solutions that deal with climate change can also deal with wealth inequality, like James Hansen' proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax that simple gets redistributed equally to the population. quote:I did engage, I asked some questions about proxies such as how they get them in desert regions and I made a comment about that, then i was called a loving idiot who watches Glen Back and a weasel. Do you understand that this is the most pressing issue of our times and most of us spend our lives walking around talking to people "just asking questions" who are using it as a thin veneer to attack the science with whatever retarded beckism is popular that week? You need to back away from being a reactionary and pretending like anyone who sees this as a big problem is a "doomsday prepper". That's just being a disingenuous jackass, and makes you look like one of those Glenn Beck listeners. You are reading what you want to hear, but here's a secret for you, you aren't going to win any fans trying to be a smartass to people who have been posting in this thread for months following these issues. It's clear that you're the one arguing from a point of ignorance here, I suggest you take a step off your high horse and maybe go back and read the thread if you're really concerned about the quality of data, because it's been discussed plenty. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Like, you unironically posted a "wattsupwiththat" article in this thread and expect to be taken seriously. It's a joke. Don't start playing the martyr. You might not be willing to come out and say that global warming isn't happening and that we're all hysterical, but god knows you will dig deep to find any evidence that suggests it might be true. Meanwhile, ignore the vast scientific consensus on the issue. Basically republican.txt Just because you're smart enough to know you that most of the "skeptics" arguments fall apart immediately upon analysis, doesn't make you any less stupid for digging through them trying to find one that might fit. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:You are absolutely incorrect. I can tell you with great confidence that Kafka made that comment talking about the exact same thing as me. That's because I know Kafka has been following this thread and understands the science(not that it takes much to figure out there's a mass extinction going on). When I see the words "mass extinction", it doesn't set off alarm bells in my head because I know that it's the literal truth. This is more of you choosing to see his argument as something it's not. Nothing he said was wrong, you just made up another half to his post in your head and decided that he was saying something he never said. I'll give you an example - not long ago, some scientists published that a bacteria living in the guts of pandas could possibly turn biofuel production on its head. Energy in cellulose usually goes locked up after digestion. The bacteria could be commercialized to retrieve the energy in wasted food. If pandas had gone extinct, we may never have made this discovery. If the conservation of their species hadn't been an agreed upon environmentalist goal, they would have gone extinct. Every single species, every toad and butterfly, has the ability to provide natural innovations that we can take advantage of. Every single extinct species unexamined is an opportunity lost. And they've been going extinct at a rapidly accelerating rate due to humans. There has never been a more important time for us to truly grasp our impact on the environment, and the sneering attitude the "just asking questions" crowd has towards real conservation is just pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I want everyone to have more and not restrict them. I'd rather bring people up to our level through innovation etc. Not bring us down. Wealth inequality is a big issue, but I'd rather have everyone level as near to the top as we can. Funnily enough though mostly developing nations are the ones pressing for action on climate change and its the industrialised nations who are fighting it. a lovely poster posted:No, it just means you're scientifically ignorant. Congratulations on your great success! Also, try to stop arguing against straw men, I don't see this consensus in the thread of "AGW is going to wipe us out". Could it? Sure, you'd have to be a moron to understand the science and not see a possibility. Is it the most likely scenario? Of course not. Could it go down in our lifetimes? Of course not. We won't be threatened with extinction in our lifetimes, but I think it's in line with most projections that we'll be seeing some very serious impacts within my lifetime (i.e. the next sixty years or so). In that time we're looking at at least another couple degrees temperature rise, and a sea level rise of several feet, plus lots more of the weird weather we've been seeing lately. There will be massive crop failures thanks to floods and droughts, major cities will be abandoned (imagine Katrina or Sandy if the sea levels had been a couple of feet higher), low lying poor countries devastated, large tracts of farmland will be lost to salinisation. And here's the problem. The global economy is fragile. To be honest even in the medium term I don't really see that paying an economic price to reduce emissions will be an overall loss. Moreover, it's not a shock. It may be that the climate change's chaotic nature makes it hard to predict exactly what will happen, but that chaos is part of the problem. I think a lot of us young people didn't realise that a few years ago when all those old dudes were talking about saving the planet for their grandkids (and failing), we were those grandkids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
The New Black posted:I think a lot of us young people didn't realise that a few years ago when all those old dudes were talking about saving the planet for their grandkids (and failing), we were those grandkids. That's what I tell my parents. Remember all those times during the seventies and eighties when environmentalists were telling you we have a huge problem that we need to deal with now if we're going to avoid it? Welcome to forty years later. I suspect that's what our kids will be telling us too now. I eagerly await someone's offspring looking down on me for justifiably placing my own material comfort over a sustainable future for humanity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 17:34
|
|