|
blowfish posted:If only we had a bunch of Fast Reactors burning up reprocessed nuclear waste, supplying us with free waste heat to run a big rear end desalination plant Even if your energy generation is practically free, you're still discharging warm, highly saline water, which does affect the local area's water.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Even if your energy generation is practically free, you're still discharging warm, highly saline water, which does affect the local area's water. True, just like with any other form of desalination. If we have to do desalination, by the way, I would advocate doing it in a highly localised/centralised fashion. Better to create a small dead zone than to gently caress up large swathes of coastal habitat slightly less. e: also large mats of funky extremophile bacteria/archaea 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 18:20
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Little problem I got here, and sorry if I don't read 100 pages of post. Most of the people around me are always like "Climate always changes" or "It's just a marketing ploy for 'clean energy technic'". What is a sane, reasonable way to tell those people they are wrong and not smack them headfirst onto a burning pile of charcoal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Little problem I got here, and sorry if I don't read 100 pages of post. I'm pretty sure it's not an issue that it's changing, it's an issue of rate and degree. Then if they seem to understand the concept you could explain things like extinction events and mass die offs, which aren't going to be fun for us to deal with when trying to feed our world population. I don't know how you can deal with the suicidally cynical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm pretty sure it's not an issue that it's changing, it's an issue of rate and degree. Then if they seem to understand the concept you could explain things like extinction events and mass die offs, which aren't going to be fun for us to deal with when trying to feed our world population. Basically: Now there's man made global warming on top of natural climate change. If we emit sufficient green house gases to warm the Earth substantially, we will shift the range within which the global mean temperature is changing upwards by several degrees. Having to deal with a change of, say, +5°C is going to suck much more than having to deal with, say, +1.5°C.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Also of note in the summary is that the natural climate change typically takes thousands of years. We have caused the same type of "natural" changes in the last 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Thanks for the help, but I tried that as well. But the people I try to reason here are stupid, homophobic, racist assholes that are oblivious to any common sense whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
You might want to just refer to the Skeptical Science points to rebut whichever tired talking point they're banging on about this time, but that's more for people observing the conversation from the sidelines. The people you're arguing with might just be completely uninterested in hearing that they're wrong, and trying to change their minds is probably an exercise in frustration
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Thanks for the help, but I tried that as well. But the people I try to reason here are stupid, homophobic, racist assholes that are oblivious to any common sense whatsoever. Defriend the mothefucklers. Being a homophobe or racist is more than enough reason to remove someone from your life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:You might want to just refer to the Skeptical Science points to rebut whichever tired talking point they're banging on about this time, but that's more for people observing the conversation from the sidelines. The people you're arguing with might just be completely uninterested in hearing that they're wrong, and trying to change their minds is probably an exercise in frustration This a thousand times; close friends and relatives could easily be among the list of people that just cannot accept it and/or do not care. I tend to flip flop between stressing out about it to managing it, if only because the science behind it is extremely interesting to me. If someone doesn't even seem like they are going to budge even a little on whatever viewpoint they have, there's no sense wasting your energy over it, it will just make you frustrated and probably feel a little helpless. ^^What he said too. If/when poo poo does hit the fan for some of the more fortunate areas, the only way we will be able to survive is through community, and naturally having viewpoints such as homophobia/racism/etc isn't something that is compatible with that. Zombie #246 fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:If/when poo poo does hit the fan for some of the more fortunate areas, the only way we will be able to survive is through community, and naturally having viewpoints such as homophobia/racism/etc isn't something that is compatible with that. You're planning on building community. They're stockpiling weapons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Defriend the mothefucklers. Being a homophobe or racist is more than enough reason to remove someone from your life. Not exactly possible since those are my parents. Anyway, I live in Austria, and the climate change here is pretty drastical noticable. Where we had snow around this time at our home - not exactly on a mountain -, nowadays we can be lucky if we get snow on silverster, if anything. Kinda sad, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 12:37
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Not exactly possible since those are my parents. I know it's not that simple, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqH_0LPVoho Also get ready for those same people to rail against scientists for failing to make the case when climate change becomes unignorable! Sometimes people take positions that are defined by their opposition to something, instead of their basis in some kind of fact. You can talk some people around, if you can find the right approach and you put the time in, but you have to ask yourself if it's worth it. Will it make a positive difference? Will they fall back to the same old "so called EXPERTS trying to tell us what to do" contrarianism at the slightest push?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Not exactly possible since those are my parents. Perhaps this is one reason you are having problems convincing your parents: you seem to be thinking in terms of weather (i.e. no longer getting snow in your hometown) whereas climate change mostly manifests itself in the form of extreme weather events. It doesn't necessarily mean all places will actually get warmer. So the moment it snows your parents are probably like, "see! the planet is not warming up after all!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Anyway, I live in Austria, and the climate change here is pretty drastical noticable. Where we had snow around this time at our home - not exactly on a mountain -, nowadays we can be lucky if we get snow on silverster, if anything. Kinda sad, to be honest. Unless you are an elderly Inuit, there is a ~0 percent chance that the Earth's climate has changed enough that you would be able to notice it in your lifetime. You can check Austria temperature/precipitation at the link below. The 1990-2009 timeframe is largely unchanged from a 1960-1990 baseline (it would appear that Austria has seen a slightly higher volume of snowfall looking at the precipitation graphs for the winter months): http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisRegion=Europe&ThisCCode=AUT We've had 12 years of a pause/no trend in global temperature, which judging by the average age of a goon, is probably around 40% of your lifetime. I don't doubt you have noticed differences, but year to year natural variations in snowfall levels on a local scale are expected and have nothing to do with human-driven global climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Unless you are an elderly Inuit, there is a ~0 percent chance that the Earth's climate has changed enough that you would be able to notice it in your lifetime. Arkane posted:We've had 12 years of a pause/no trend in global temperature,
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Unless you are an elderly Inuit, there is a ~0 percent chance that the Earth's climate has changed enough that you would be able to notice it in your lifetime. It's like you don't even read this thread between your posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Unless you are an elderly Inuit, there is a ~0 percent chance that the Earth's climate has changed enough that you would be able to notice it in your lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Not exactly possible since those are my parents. These people deny the evidence of their very own senses. We've had all sorts of denialism crop up, since the Tories basically endorsed climate denialism as their thing, despite the fact we've had loving absurd weather and climate change already. Like here in WA we had literally a month of 40c+ days a couple of years back. This is a city that used to be famous for its awesome weather, never lower than about 8-9c on the coldest winter day, and never higher than 40c on the hottest day. Now its a total fuckhole of a city that gets murdered by the infernal deathstar in summer. Meanwhile floods have been flattening queensland on a yearly basis, fires have been raping NSW on a yearly basis, Melbourne has somehow been getting days of 40c and higher regularly, oh and also burning down. Its just chaos. But the government in power has just sacked the entire climate commission, is pulling all the funding out of climate change mitigation, is cancelling the carbon tariff scheme, and is being cheered on by the Murdoch press which owns 70% of newspapers here. How does this even work?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Unless you are an elderly Inuit, there is a ~0 percent chance that the Earth's climate has changed enough that you would be able to notice it in your lifetime. Don't just make poo poo up dude. Its a very dishonest way of engaging in debate. We don't engage in fantasy in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
duck monster posted:These people deny the evidence of their very own senses. We've had all sorts of denialism crop up, since the Tories basically endorsed climate denialism as their thing, despite the fact we've had loving absurd weather and climate change already. Like here in WA we had literally a month of 40c+ days a couple of years back. This is a city that used to be famous for its awesome weather, never lower than about 8-9c on the coldest winter day, and never higher than 40c on the hottest day. Now its a total fuckhole of a city that gets murdered by the infernal deathstar in summer. Meanwhile floods have been flattening queensland on a yearly basis, fires have been raping NSW on a yearly basis, Melbourne has somehow been getting days of 40c and higher regularly, oh and also burning down. The way you're describing it, it sounds like the whole continent (or at least the government) wants to engage in a slow mass suicide.  Is there any news that's going to make me want to live through the century? Anybody have anything at all, or is it just bad all the way down? Inglonias fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Maybe I'm confused because I'm tired but are people being sarcastic in this thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Maybe I'm confused because I'm tired but are people being sarcastic in this thread right now. I'm not. That was actually genuine in my case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:I'm not. Also, sorry I'm just so confused I barely even know what to write. Some guy basically said he had empirical evidence of global warming in his back yard and some guy said that can't be true. I tend to agree with him because then why the hell do we pay scientists? Then some guy responds with "We don't engage in fantasy in D&D" and it just sounds like a Dungeons & Dragons joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I tend to agree with him because then why the hell do we pay scientists? America Inc. fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Extreme weather events increasing in frequency and heatwaves as a trend due to CO2 increase are predicted by climate science. If the bushfires continue in Australia for many years and make places uninhabitable there's a very low chance it's just a freak occurence. I'm not sure why Arkane posts here anymore, he doesn't seem to follow the science at all. He's that one guy who tries to keep convincing us that Obama is from Kenya in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I haven't been following science closely either and that's why I was visiting this thread. I have no idea to think when someone tries to dispute a very anecdotal-looking argument and then gets dog piled by comments that kinda look tongue-in-cheek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:If you want more info look at the IPCC policymaker summaries, James Hansen's research, NASA, National Geographic, and Skeptical Science. Make sure to look up climate feedbacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Extreme weather events and heatwaves increasing in frequency as a trend due to CO2 increase are predicted by climate science. If the bushfires continue in Australia for many years and make places uninhabitable there's a very low chance it's just a freak occurence, especially when it repeats across the planet. I'm not sure why Arkane posts here anymore, he doesn't seem to follow the science at all. He's that one guy who tries to keep convincing us that Obama is from Kenya in 2013. It starts to grate when parts of your home country become uninhabitable and climate change exacerbates the water issues Australia was already dealing with. Even New Zealand, a spot in the middle of nowhere that should be buffered from the worst of Climate Change by ocean regulators is getting hard hit. We're seeing less droughts, true, but more torrential rainfall. Some say 'Hey, that's great for pasture, climate change is a good thing!' to which I respond 'Not when the pasture and topsoil are washed the gently caress away into the rivers and screw over that ecology as well'. What I'm saying is: gently caress John Key, gently caress Tony Abbott, and gently caress anyone who denies climate change. Please actively hunt them down and give them a tire-and-petrol treatment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I haven't been following science closely either and that's why I was visiting this thread. I have no idea to think when someone tries to correct a very anecdotal-looking statement and then gets dog piled by comments that kinda look tongue-in-cheek. Individual extreme weather events (and anecdotes) can't be said to be climate change, but patterns of extreme weather events can be. This paper talks about the chances of extreme weather events that have been occurring in the past few years happening were statistically negligible in decades prior, so the amount and intensity of these events taken together can only be explained by climate change. Here's a follow-up to that paper as well. So for example, it's hard to link a a single heat wave in Australia to climate change. However, the multitude of intense heatwaves around the globe, consistently, over multiple years, is very difficult to explain without climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:The people of the Maldives and other island nations are noticing. Their countries are sinking. Just to inject a little reality, the Maldives sea level has risen 4.5 centimeters (1.7in) in 20 years as measured by satellites. They are noticing what exactly? The main island has a sea wall, which can readily be erected in any other island that needs it. Which won't be anytime remotely soon even under the high end IPCC forecast. Sea level rise is of course incredibly slow. It appears that the President of the Maldives has claimed that their islands will be underwater by 2020. A real honest upstanding citizen, that guy. Negative Entropy posted:And BAU will be noticeable for a person living a 80-year life. We'll make a deal to reconvene here in 2060 and assess the situation. I'm roughly guessing based upon climate sensitivity models vis a vis doubled CO2 that we'll be .8 degrees warmer and the sea levels will be 5.5 inches higher. That's a high-end number based upon an assumption of technological stasis for ~50 years. duck monster posted:Don't just make poo poo up dude. Its a very dishonest way of engaging in debate. We don't engage in fantasy in D&D. You're the only one making poo poo up from where I sit, hoss: duck monster posted:Im still skeptical the hiatus ever happened. Shits been bonkers where where i live for the last few years. You don't even believe any of the 5 climate data sets, apparently because....shits been bonkers wherever it is you call home. WarpedNaba posted:What I'm saying is: gently caress John Key, gently caress Tony Abbott, and gently caress anyone who denies climate change. Please actively hunt them down and give them a tire-and-petrol treatment. Necklacing, otherwise also known as 'Horse Collaring', is the practice of summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The victim may take up to 20 minutes to die, suffering severe burns in the process. Real talk WarpedNeba: this is not something a normal person thinks or says.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
Not sure what the point is...I guess that the ocean is (apparently) absorbing more heat than we anticipated and mixing it into the deep ocean? We've discussed that man. I pretty much consider Nuccitelli to be an alarmist hack, as I am sure you could've guessed. Getting back to the interesting bit on the hiatus....not only has there been a pause since 2001 (or 1998 from the cherry-picked ENSO maximum), but the most recent 5-year model from the UK Met office forecasts it will continue until at least 2018:  The other 2 lines are the hilariously warm 100-year climate models. Might've posted this graph already in this thread in the summer. Arkane fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Just to inject a little reality, the Maldives sea level has risen 4.5 centimeters (1.7in) in 20 years as measured by satellites. They are noticing what exactly? Public Radio International posted:The threat from rising sea levels is clear on the island of Guraidhoo, where environment official Mohamed Zahir pointed a group of international visitors towards a patch of eroded shoreline. Arkane posted:The main island has a sea wall, which can readily be erected in any other island that needs it. Which won't be anytime remotely soon even under the high end IPCC forecast. Sea level rise is of course incredibly slow. The Maldives says that it cannot afford to build a barrier around every island. Arkane posted:It appears that the President of the Maldives has claimed that their islands will be underwater by 2020. A real honest upstanding citizen, that guy. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
I've been really bewildered and frustrated by the amount of deception coming from right-wing media lately. From Daily Caller a couple of weeks ago:quote:Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming Right, a bunch of weathermen registering their completely non-climate-scientist position, thanks fellas. I wound up emailing the AMS directly on this and got a prompt response from AMS Executive Director Kevin Seitter, who pointed me to the actual survey results here, along with his blog post on the topic. From the tactfully worded email: quote:"I really appreciate your help in propagating this information so that people can make their own conclusions from the actual data." What's the AMS going to do when their survey is misrepresented, demand a retraction from the conservative bubble? I actually had to screenshot this email for someone who didn't believe any of this, at which point I was accused of forgery. And a couple days later, this is even worse: quote:Report: Scientists predict a century of global cooling quote:Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University argues that the world is set for global cooling due to rapidly falling solar activity. Lockwood in 2007 posted:"The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified." Lockwood in 2008 posted:"It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%." He's trying to clarify his position, but who's going to read some obscure blog? In a 24-hour news cycle, the damage is done before he even hears about it. I've argued heartily with skeptics, begging them to read these articles objectively and to understand that there's no substance to these arguments whatsoever. The denialist plan of attack seems to be to just drop mad bullshit and play the odds, that for every one person who actually takes the time to dig and uncover the complete bullshit, there are a thousand people who will read the headline, plug it into the skeptic ConfirmathonTM and carry on. Michaellaneous posted:Little problem I got here, and sorry if I don't read 100 pages of post. I have decided to turn this post into a megalist of responses/approaches that have been working (somewhat) for me: "The 97% consensus is bullshit, the majority of scientists don't endorse climate change!" Politely ask them to provide the name of any major scientific organization on the face of the earth that does not endorse anthropogenic global warming (there are none, anywhere, in any country.). Cheat sheets here and here. "The scientists are all on the take going after grant money!" Do you agree that it is a good idea to perform some research into whether or not climate change is a problem? If so, who's going to do it? Scientists in climate-related fields. Do they work for free? No, we pay them to apply their knowledge and tell us what's going on. We have thousands of scientists out there on the Ross Ice Shelf, or measuring ice cores in Siberia, or calculating sea level rise on some island. Of course they're getting paid for what they do. But the idea that all of these oceanographers and geophysicists and atmospheric researchers are collectively throwing their research and their professional credibility out the window in favor of money they're getting anyway is nuts. But green energy subsidies, Al Gore making millions For starters, who cares what Al Gore thinks? He's a politician, not a scientist. His soundbites have nothing to do with what is going on. What he believes shouldn't have anything to do with what you or I conclude from our review of the evidence. Are people making money off AGW? Sure there are! Some of them are probably distorting the truth for financial gain! Why wouldn't they? There are huge opportunities to profit off this here in America, because it's America. That's what we do. We're loving awesome at it. I can't imagine an America where those opportunities existed and weren't being enthusiastically seized. But those opportunities aren't driving the science, it's the other way around. To prove otherwise, you need proof. And there is None. "But the NIPCC" The NIPCC consists of just over fifty (50) members. Of those, sixteen are retired; of the remaining, twelve do not appear to have a professional scientific background. Where are all of these dissenting researchers? Most of the NIPCC contributors receive a monthly salary for their work; IPCC contributors work on a voluntary basis. Why? Because if they got a dime from anybody, the media would be screaming conspiracy. By comparison to the NIPCC's headcount (~30 active researchers): I did a manual copy/paste of all contributors to AR5, dumped them into Excel, weeded out the duplicates, and tallied them up: 650 contributors representing thirty-seven countries. That's for one-third of AR5 (when fully published). "There's no such thing as scientific consensus" You are conflating consensus with unanimity. They are not the same thing. "The 97% study is skewed" Often lost in this one is that all researchers whose papers were included in Cook's study were also given the opportunity to self-rate their papers, to safeguard against skeptic findings being misrepresented as pro-AGW findings. The self-assesed agreement (from those who responded) on AGW from human activity? 97.2%. Additionally, the ratings of each paper reviewed are publicly available. And the criteria used to poll any/all climate-related research from credible archives are generally undisputed, so...where's the evidence of scientific fraud or deception? I spend a lot of time at Daily Caller, staying polite at all costs and fielding all shots as fairly and objectively as I can, in hopes that a couple random folks read the thread? and maybe inch a little closer or swing all the way over to reality on this issue? I've decided it's the best thing I can do right now to help, because I frankly don't feel that individual/voluntary change does very much. Turning off the light in the garage and not running the faucet when you're brushing doesn't move the needle. We waste far more than that in the course of things we need to do in society. How we get to work, what we eat, the poo poo we buy, the waste embedded in those processes from top to bottom, the cost of all that fuckin plastic, whether we recycle it or not. The change has to come from the top, and that will only come if the majority of people get on board and get worried about AGW, and collectively make it enough of a political issue that we see a more fundamental change in energy policy, specifically as relates to manufacturing more than anything else. Drinking fifteen percent less does nothing; we have got to put a clamp on the hose somehow, and that is going to be a colossal bitch. I don't focus much on the apocalyptic stuff that sometimes carries this thread, it's all so speculative that it serves no purpose for me other than idle chat. None of the models can be reasonably expected to accurately predict that stuff even on a climate-based level yet, to say nothing of a political/economic/social level. My guess is that the consensus continues to gain momentum, buoyed mainly by drought concerns and by additional severe weather events (most of what I read including AR5 seems to predict an increase in severity, not frequency), and we're forced to get into nuclear hard and fast, because it's the only way everyone still gets to have all their nice things. No politician is going to man up and be the one to deliver the message that the party is over, so nuclear it is. That's why you don't hear poo poo about Fukushima in mainstream media, in my opinion: not because there's a massive radiation wave pulsing our way across the Pacific, but because nuclear's going to have to sound Awesome pretty soon, and Fukushima is Not Awesome, so shut the gently caress up about Fukushima. rivetz fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not sure what the point is...I guess that the ocean is (apparently) absorbing more heat than we anticipated and mixing it into the deep ocean? We've discussed that man. I pretty much consider Nuccitelli to be an alarmist hack, as I sure you could've guessed America Inc. fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
duck monster posted:But the government in power has just sacked the entire climate commission, is pulling all the funding out of climate change mitigation, is cancelling the carbon tariff scheme, and is being cheered on by the Murdoch press which owns 70% of newspapers here. The old man will make more money and won't run out of nicer places to go before he dies? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
rivetz posted:
Good post for the most part, but where are you getting this from? Because water is incredibly good at absorbing radiation and there's kinda a fuckton of it in the pacific- if it was actually an issue there would be MASSIVE problems near the reactor. There is no "massive radiation wave" that's only claimed on nutjob conspiracy sites. I don't think I will ever understand some people's views on nuclear. You can point to the most awful disaster it's had in decades and the people around it barely got more radiation than background levels. To compare, 30* people have died from wind energy since Fukushima happened to its...0 deaths. *woops, 30 fatal accidents, meaning more than 30 deaths as accidents can result in multiple deaths. e: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 quote:I stood on a ship two miles from the Fukushima reactors in June 2011 and as recently as May 2013, and it was safe to be there (I carry radiation detectors with me) and collect samples of all kinds (water, sediment, biota). Although radioactive isotopes in the samples and on the ship were measurable back in our lab, it was low enough to be safe to handle samples without any precautions. In fact, our biggest problem is filtering out natural radionuclides in our samples so we can measure the trace levels of cesium and other radionuclides that we know came from Fukushima. enbot fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Arkane posted:
Um. I'm not. And what "5 data sets"? So far the data is somewhat unambiguous , climate change is happening, in some places quite dramatically. There isn't a debate about this except in crazy person circles. Are you a crazy person, Arkane? duck monster fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Um. I'm not. There is a very large false science movement intentionally releasing bullshit to further a profit-driven political agenda. There are plenty of data sets suggesting anthropogenic climate change isn't A Thing. Those are either tailored disingenuously to misrepresent reality or have been outright falsified. Unfortunately one group selectively misrepresented climate change data on one occasion; I am sure the doubters here will come flying out of the woodwork to use that one scandal as a way to totally disregard decades of undisputed no-bullshit factual data. I'll look up lots of factual stuff for you guys and probably spend hours on end some day in the next week writing about this topic including sources; covering that scandal and the current situation as represented by international science agencies. For now just get personal with NOAA and the NSIDC.  Edit:  Somehow I thought this was a new thread, I am retardo. Still planning an effortpost.Diet Lime fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Arkane posted:Getting back to the interesting bit on the hiatus....not only has there been a pause since 2001 (or 1998 from the cherry-picked ENSO maximum), but the most recent 5-year model from the UK Met office forecasts it will continue until at least 2018: So what exactly is your point Arkane? Do you believe that the pause in warming land temperatures is just a temporary compensation by non-anthropogenic phenomenon such as La Nina? Or do you think it actually demonstrates fundamental flaws in AGW models and theories? If the latter, then you've got a lot more explaining to do. If the former, why bring it up at all, except maybe to point out that pure serendipity has graced us with a decade or two of reduced land warming, which we should use as best we can to counter or prepare the inevitable end of the pause?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:41
|
|
