|
i am harry posted:James Lovelock gives us 20 years. That was James Lovelock in 2008 This is James Lovelock in 2012: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Arkane posted:That was James Lovelock in 2008 The Article posted:Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.” So he's joined the general scientific consensus of "it is going to suck hard" rather than "the world turns into Venus." Still doesn't change much of what we are talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Arkane posted:That was James Lovelock in 2008 That's funny. Thanks for that. Welp, I guess that wraps it up for global warming, guys. i am harry posted:James Lovelock gives us 20 years. And guns, lots of them. And women too, as they can be exchanged for food, petrol, ammo, other necessities. Actually, HipGnosis, your choices are moral choices, at least on the face of them. I can't fault you for that. Just remember to stay flexible and adaptable, and work on having community. I've known lots of folks that tried something in the vague direction of what you are talking about, and while not as prepared as you appear to be, most eventually wound up going back to the mainstream culture. In good part because of the isolation involved in being the only ones locally or whatever to have their lifestyle/outlook. SnakePlissken fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
SnakePlissken posted:That's funny. Thanks for that. Welp, I guess that wraps it up for global warming, guys. That would be really cutting if it had anything to do with what Arkane was pointing out, which was that Lovelace doesn't recommended buying a hazmat suit and some ammo in the next 20 years anymore
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:That would be really cutting if it had anything to do with what Arkane was pointing out, which was that Lovelace doesn't recommended buying a hazmat suit and some ammo in the next 20 years anymore ... And subsequently that pretty much wraps it up for global warming. Not sure what cutting remark you think I failed at making, but I was just mocking the glib denialist attitudes one seems to run across everywhere. Not terribly cutting really. I admit I was a bit incoherent, what with responding to three posts in one and not even quoting the one I was responding to the most, so sorry about that. I do find it funny that Lovelace is walking back on his old alarmist attitude though. Not in a bad way, really either. I'm hoping that I'm even more wrong than he is with my doom and gloom attitude. I'll even throw a big party and invite you goons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
HipGnosis posted:Once again as D&D's de facto environmental thread um... can someone please make me feel better about this video? To add to what others have said, my friends here at UC Berkeley (along with the EPA and other groups at universities) have also been monitoring the radiation levels on the west coast with high sensitivity radiation detectors. My friend recently did some measurements and made a response post to that youtube video showing the guy with the Geiger counter at Half Moon Bay. There's also salmon measurements using the low background facility at LBNL if you're interested. It's sad when I see propaganda/scaremongering videos and articles because it assumes there aren't hundreds/thousands of people studying and monitoring this stuff. We live here too, we will tell you if a giant radioactive cloud is going to wipe out the west coast, I promise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3947396.htm Interesting interview with Professor Snow Barlow from Melbourne U. Prof Snow was one of the holdout "skeptics" (I'm really not sure skeptic is the right word anymore than a creationist is a "skeptic" but whatever) for a while there, but over the past few years has revised his view and basically thinks that yes its happening, and yes its going to suck. Topical, because Australia pretty much had/is having its hottest summer on record (Its been surprisingly mild 90f range summer on the west coast, but apparently the east coast has been a total monster of 105f+ days ), with fires, floods, drought and all sorts of ridiculous bullshit over the past few years , but the primeminister is in the press again ranting about it all being "just a cycle". http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-downplays-role-of-climate-change-in-current-drought-20140217-32vub.html Sometimes I think the platonic idea of just having scientists and scholars running the country isn't as fascist as it sounds after all.  edit: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/2014/02/13/heatwaves-report/ By the way, the Australian Climate Council is a really good resource. Essentially there was a government body here , the Climate Commission, and literally a week or two into the conservatives getting into power, the new primeminister just straight up axed the department. Anyway, the commission basically kickstarter style ran a fundraiser, raised a million or so dollars and floated itself as a public NGO, and its now the climate council. Still basically the peak scientific body representing climate scientists in australia but now free of govt interference. Its major role is to interpret scientific findings for the lay public so its all good readable stuff for us mere mortals. Some of it does read a bit activisty at times, but frankly the science is getting more dismal as time goes on and a lot of fairly serious-beaver scientists are getting very nervous about whats coming out of the data , in terms of its impact on Australia. duck monster fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
I'm actually not sure how more people aren't getting freaked out by all this. It seems like even watching biased news you'd hear something about how all of a sudden everywhere's reaching record temperatures and generally getting beaten up by the weather.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Mainstream news will report extreme weather events but is generally very hesitant to even mention that what is happening is precisely the kind of poo poo that was predicted to occur as a result of climate change. It seems there is typically no deeper analysis past "welp, things suck for people in (region)!" Not that all these weather events can be directly linked to climate change. But there was a quote up thread that summarized my feelings on it well: if you keep rolling two 6's with a pair of die, at some point you have to assume they are loaded. The fact that records are being broken globally is, to me, indicative of a very unsettling future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:I'm actually not sure how more people aren't getting freaked out by all this. What is there to be freaked out by, in your opinion? Really an open question for anyone. Instead of far future projections, what about more reasonable projections like 20 years into the future. Hypothetically, the Earth is .4 degrees warmer and sea levels are 2.5 inches higher. That matches IPCC modeling. So...what's changed? Besides the fact that probably a billion people in poverty have been brought of it during those 2 decades. I think the Lovelock about-face is the fate of most of the posters in this thread at some point. Not that global warming isn't a problem, but that exaggeration has really run rampant in this topic and that people should stick to things that are firmly within the science. Lovelock looked at observations of temperature (which have been statistically flat since 2001) and saw that things weren't going to hell in a handbasket as he feared. He re-assessed. That's a very scientific way of thinking about the topic, rather than a shrill political approach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:(which have been statistically flat since 2001) Can you please stop saying this? You know full well its not loving true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Arkane posted:That's a very scientific way of thinking about the topic, rather than a shrill political approach. Shrill maybe, but few of the posters in this thread have any kind of political approach whatsoever. I think that's projection on your part. ED: It is not political football unless you don't care about what's at stake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Can you please stop saying this? You know full well its not loving true. From 2001 to present, the trends in the 3 ground-based climate data sets are .01C, -.01C, and -.02C, all of those measured per decade. In other words, flat. Over that same time period, the climate models predicted that temperature would rise by .2C per decade. You can see it visualized here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CotwinAndWay_2001.png You'll note on there that there is another line marked "CW Hybrid" which is the Cowtan & Way study which altered one of the datasets from -.02C to .04C. Still flat, though. Really not much else to tell you man. The hiatus is well-reported in articles and Nature did a news piece on it last month that attempted to explain it: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.14525!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/505276a.pdf Observations don't lie. All of the climate data is publicly available, and readily accessible on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:I'm actually not sure how more people aren't getting freaked out by all this. It seems like even watching biased news you'd hear something about how all of a sudden everywhere's reaching record temperatures and generally getting beaten up by the weather. Until it starts affecting everyone universally, like agricultural yields, I don't think there's going to be that much panic. Isolated areas that hammered with bad weather and the global poor are the ones who will suffer. Even if climate change doesn't have as bad an impact on agriculture as predicted, the extreme weather will make crop yields unreliable, which is just as bad. Look at England and California right now. If the flood water doesn't drain in the south-west of England, and Claifornia farmers don't get better water access that is a lot of important agriculture going unproductive this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Arkane tends to think of global warming as an isolate since that allows him to maintain his other views as a beneficiary of the system producing it. He will tend to see the systemic production of inequity, acidification of the oceans and mass extinction, etc. either as disconnected events or non-existent so that he can maintain his world view. It's a common thing and he is not alone in it. Whenever reading his posts it is useful to recognize his vested interest. It's that relatively unexamined background view that let's him imagine conspiracy theories within the scientific community without blinking an eye, for instance. His posts are useful since they show the "logic" necessary to maintain such a view. I posted that logic structure up thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Until it starts affecting everyone universally, like agricultural yields, I don't think there's going to be that much panic. Isolated areas that hammered with bad weather and the global poor are the ones who will suffer. I think constantly chirping about the fate of the global poor is pretty laughable, especially when greens are trying to force upon them energy policies that are going to keep them right where they are. Bjorn Lomborg wrote a great op-ed about this a couple of weeks ago, but really it's been a theme for a while now. quote:Is it fair to use climate policies to keep poor people poor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^^ I am a solar cell researcher and I've been constantly boosting for assembly line nuclear power. Don't look at me for boosting "expensive" options. Can somebody link to the series of photos where Cefte took Arkane to task. I think it's been more than 20 pages or so and I was stupid enough to not save the link last time. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
This stuff has been retreaded over and over but I will just leave these here for fun http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140211-global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-science-climate/ http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/global-warming-pause-answer-blowin-ocean-n24921
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think constantly chirping about the fate of the global poor is pretty laughable, especially when greens are trying to force upon them energy policies that are going to keep them right where they are. Well that's a hell of a segue from what I was talking about. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Can someone help me dispute this argument, I totally believe in global warming and someone posted this as evidence that it was not in fact occuring. '  Honestly it looks like a general global temperature scale, which I don't know even where to begin with. Basically their argument is CO2 is good because it's plant food and the whole global wamring is bullshit. This is the website it was posted on http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Well that's a hell of a segue from what I was talking about. I don't think the lives of poor people even remotely enters the calculus of positions involving climate change. Maybe as some abstract, undefined "suffering" that you can pat yourself on the back for caring about for a few seconds, but beyond that not much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Can someone help me dispute this argument, I totally believe in global warming and someone posted this as evidence that it was not in fact occuring. Half a pixel on that chart would literally be tens of thousands years. Carbon emissions have gone up an incredible amount in only a few hundred years, and we generally know that increasing carbon = increasing global average temperatures. What we don't know, but appear to be finding out, is how much this will affect our current climates -- with the consensus ranging from "bad" to "civilization ending".
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I don't think the lives of poor people even remotely enters the calculus of positions involving climate change. Maybe as some abstract, undefined "suffering" that you can pat yourself on the back for caring about for a few seconds, but beyond that not much. Besides, you know, the issue that we talk about the global poor being the ones hardest hit and least insulated by climate change every few pages or so, where as I recall we discuss things like food prices, agricultural work, and other land-dependent activities that characterize the global poor's lives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 06:05
|
|
Arkane posted:I don't think the lives of poor people even remotely enters the calculus of positions involving climate change. Is this what you think about everyone or just yourself?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Besides, you know, the issue that we talk about the global poor being the ones hardest hit and least insulated by climate change every few pages or so, where as I recall we discuss things like food prices, agricultural work, and other land-dependent activities that characterize the global poor's lives. Let me make it more simplistic using the example brought up in that editorial. If you had $10b to use for building energy projects in Africa, would you build them for 90 million people (but they would be emitting CO2) or would you build them for 30 million people (but they would emit nothing except in the manufacturing process)? Assume that it's not a false choice. If it's the CO2 project, are you critical of the Obama administration on this issue? If it's the clean project, how do you reconcile that with not reaching as many people? down with slavery posted:Is this what you think about everyone or just yourself? I've been pretty consistent in my belief that mitigation is virtually impossible. It's just never going to happen. Countries around the world are going to keep building CO2-intensive sources of energy, and it's only going to increase over the near term future. The demand for energy is simply far too large. Those who think that mitigation is possible and necessary must consequently believe that CO2-sources of energy should be curtailed to the greatest possible degree, even in developing countries. That would have a profound stunting effect on growth in those countries (which is why they'd never, ever agree to them). Fundamentally, it would hurt the poor people the most. Even in a first world country like the US, poor people would bear the brunt of the cost of a transition because clean energy is far too expensive. Arkane fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 06:15
|
|
Arkane posted:because clean energy is far too expensive. Bullshit http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html A reasonable, easy to institute proposal that would only help There are plenty of steps we can take to reduce emmissions which don't directly translate into more suffering for the poor of anywhere.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Bullshit Hansen and Lomborg are on the same page. I like how two polar opposites on climate change can come to the same conclusion on how to deal with climate change. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Let me make it more simplistic using the example brought up in that editorial. If you had $10b to use for building energy projects in Africa, would you build them for 90 million people (but they would be emitting CO2) or would you build them for 30 million people (but they would emit nothing except in the manufacturing process)? Assume that it's not a false choice. No, why should I play along with anything you say? Like literally everyone here sees no value to buying into your worldview, and that extends to any counter factual scenarios that you may bring to the table. Your word is valueless, and the articles you bring to the table are to be met with all scrutiny. As has been mentioned before, I support massive deployment of nuclear power, and you say nothing to it. Like the only thing I want that is relative to you is a nice link to the old "debate" you had with Cefte so I can put a link of it into your av as a warning to others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Like the only thing I want that is relative to you is a nice link to the old "debate" you had with Cefte so I can put a link of it into your av as a warning to others. I suspect you mean this or this. Cefte posted:Whiplash Effect is indeed a terrible thing, but more stressful than that is the whiplash you inflict on posters in this forum, Arkane, when the resonance between your constantly shifting goalposts harmonizes with the shimmering flicker that is your cherry-picking of authoritative sources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Now Arkane is concern trolling for the global poor. That's awfully rich of him. I thought the "good news everybody, turns out the heat is going into the sea!" was a laugh but with him there is always more and it is always worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:I'm actually not sure how more people aren't getting freaked out by all this. It seems like even watching biased news you'd hear something about how all of a sudden everywhere's reaching record temperatures and generally getting beaten up by the weather. quote:...climate change and its component parts are unlike every other story from the Syrian slaughter and the problems of Obamacare to Bridgegate and Justin Bieber’s arrest. The future of all other stories, of the news and storytelling itself, rests on just how climate change manifests itself over the coming decades or even century. What happens in the 2014 midterms or the 2016 presidential elections, in our wars, politics, and culture, who is celebrated and who ignored -- none of it will matter if climate change devastates the planet. I'm wary of causing a derail because I'm sure the comparisons to the Cold War won't agree with everybody, but I do think there's something to the argument that the way we create and tell news stories is distinctly unsuited to discussions of climate change. Even when individual stories are put in a broader context, that context is set as a background to the specific news item instead of being made into the main story. I don't know of any studies on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if 'compassion fatigue' is now a thing in relation to stories about record temperatures, floods, droughts, melting ice, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Now Arkane is concern trolling for the global poor. That's awfully rich of him. I thought the "good news everybody, turns out the heat is going into the sea!" was a laugh but with him there is always more and it is always worse. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
New Dyer opinion piece on recent events: http://www.straight.com/news/588366/gwynne-dyer-its-abrupt-climate-change-stupid quote:It’s abrupt climate change, stupid
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I like how the guy he quotes to support his false dichotomy doesn't believe there is a dichotomy! Lomborg supporting a carbon tax means that he doesn't believe there is a zero-sum game between development and renewable energy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That's kind of unresponsive to Arkane's point, Is anything Arkane has to say something we're suddenly caring about? It's been consistently demonstrated that he's biased beyond any capacity to reasonably evaluate sources (or a Poe). No one can be on coal power if we want the species to survive catastrophic climate change. If that means wealthier nations have to assist developing nations in alternative power generation, then so be it. We're well past the point that we needed a global solution anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That's kind of unresponsive to Arkane's point, though. In the absence of efforts to put a monetary cost on the externalities of carbon emission, coal is cheaper than renewables, and cheaper even than nuclear. Dollar for dollar, you can get more dirty coal power than anything else. A carbon tax only 'resolves' this in the sense that it makes coal power less affordable - if what you're searching for is the cheapest way to supply electricity to those who lack it, it isn't particularly helpful. Wrong. Dollars are made up fictional things and you can't start talking about costs of energy generation in a vacuum like it isn't almost completely dictated by the policies of those in power. Yes, Coal's EROEI is quite high but if you factor in the costs, like the effects of carbon emissions, it's quite clear that it's just as "expensive" as anything else. The fact that Coal is cheaper dollar for dollar is just a failure of society, not an indictment of possible ways to change that. We have the resources and the means. Unfortunately, the people who run the show are in the vein of Arkane's dad, and they will fight tooth and nail against sacrificing their own personal wealth to better serve their countrymen because god knows I need next years' Lambo more than those Singaporean "people" running my factories need their lives.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Wrong. Dollars are made up fictional things and you can't start talking about costs of energy generation in a vacuum like it isn't almost completely dictated by the policies of those in power. It's a failure to count externalities as a cost, because hey, it's not their externality to deal with directly. Nothing more, nothing less. To put it as plainly as possible, it's FYGM, business school edition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:54
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:To put it as plainly as possible, it's FYGM, business school edition. Exactly, and for Arkane to pretend otherwise is just ludicrous. quote:I don't think the lives of poor people even remotely enters the calculus of positions involving climate change. Maybe as some abstract, undefined "suffering" that you can pat yourself on the back for caring about for a few seconds, but beyond that not much. Really sums it up. Not only is he dumb enough to believe this (what a coincidence that this non-position also allows him to keep his ill-gotten wealth, shocker) but dumb enough to pretend like this is some kind of truism.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Wrong. Dollars are made up fictional things and you can't start talking about costs of energy generation in a vacuum like it isn't almost completely dictated by the policies of those in power. As a result of this, poorer countries can get more coal power for fewer real actual dollars than they can of other types of power, operating in the world where the Green Communist Revolution hasn't happened yet. The people of these countries do want electrical power, and would benefit from it. Do I take it that your argument is that they should not avail themselves of coal, on the basis that doing so would cause other economic damages which would push the net cost over the long term to be greater than that of their alternatives? Something to keep in mind, pertaining to that, is that regardless of what dollar value you assign to a given quantity of CO2 emission, the damage there is non-localized. If a small, poor country makes use of CO2-intensive power sources, they themselves will suffer only a tiny fraction of the externalities associated with it, with the rest being spread around the globe, to many nations more capable of dealing with it. Should this affect our calculus, as to what their best course of action would be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:11 |
|
Strudel Man posted:Okay, well. This is kind of silly, for reasons that I would hope are obvious. The current dollar cost of coal power is not exactly pulled out of a hat, as you seem to be suggesting. But yes, it does not attempt to account for the externalities that CO2 emission and other pollutants may impose. That's why these things get called 'externalities,' in fact. I'm saying that in the US, we could tax the rich here and afford to do it for them. We could drastically reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, if by nothing else by paying countries to plant more trees. We just need to start spending resources on reducing carbon, it's not hard. Remove subsidies on fossil fuels here, and tax the rich to make up the difference if it effects the poor. And honestly, given the economic situation in America, you can just throw that out because of the absurd amount of untapped wealth we have here sitting in corporate vaults and the coffers of a select few. No, we should not (and could not) impose a global ban on coal, but we can dissuade it's use and pursue other methods of reducing carbon output, like say, not only using more domestic nuclear power, but exporting the technology to the developing world. quote:Something to keep in mind, pertaining to that, is that regardless of what dollar value you assign to a given quantity of CO2 emission, the damage there is non-localized. If a small, poor country makes use of CO2-intensive power sources, they themselves will suffer only a tiny fraction of the externalities associated with it, with the rest being spread around the globe, to many nations more capable of dealing with it. Should this affect our calculus, as to what their best course of action would be? Look, the reason that James Hansen' tax plan is nice is that it's a direct dividend back to the population per capita. It's going to impact the people that consume the most carbon (businesses, the rich) much more than the poor. Yes, you're going to see hikes in the price of things across the board, but you're also going to be receiving a check in advance for the month based on an estimate of the value of the tax. And we can start as small as we need to. The bottom line is you're going to need to accept that the developing world is going to emit more carbon now than us, and we are going to deal with the consequences. To do otherwise would be wildly hypocritical and if we want to reduce their carbon output, we could do so outside of dictating political policy with the backing of military force.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:42
|
|