|
enbot posted:The pendant is the one who would refer to earth as a closed system, because it would never be called that in academia. This is utter nonsense, the earth is routinely referred to as a closed system in the earth sciences. enbot posted:Exactly, in the context of GW calling the earth a closed system is incredibly silly, since nobody would be thinking of the super technical definition most professors wouldn't even care about. Yes of course, if there's one thing scientists don't care about it's the correct use of specific technical terminology. Jesus Christ.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
enbot posted:The pendant is the one who would refer to earth as a closed system, because it would never be called that in academia. Not to be a pedant, but what does jewelry have to do with academia?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 18:51
|
|
enbot posted:Why don't we do it? Pretty simple- it's still a lot cheaper to get it from other sources, or use thorium or whatever. But why is it cheaper?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
It's technically cheaper to put enriched uranium in reactors than to bomb the Russians (or us). Guess where lots of reactor fuel comes from these days (it's from decommissioned warheads).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
EightBit posted:It's technically cheaper to put enriched uranium in reactors than to bomb the Russians (or us). Guess where lots of reactor fuel comes from these days (it's from decommissioned warheads). Actually that's a current issue. Roughly 50% of US nuclear fuel was coming from decommissioned Russian warheads and they've run out of that, so now they either need to build new refinement plants (to which NIMBY is a very reasonable response, given the types of people who end up running the things) or import it from overseas. Nuclear power would be great if it weren't run by cartoon villains who oppose any kind of oversight. See: Davis-Besse and Vermont Yankee in particular. My dream platform is a nationalized power generation infrastructure spearheaded by the Navy, in whom I have about a million times more confidence than whatever Captain of Industry is lying out his rear end at the present moment. It can be like the "national interstate and defense highway system": it's technically there for the military, but in the meantime we let civilians drive around on the roads and use the power. e: Oh hey even more Davis-Besse issues! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:My dream platform is a nationalized power generation infrastructure spearheaded by the Navy, in whom I have about a million times more confidence than whatever Captain of Industry is lying out his rear end at the present moment. It can be like the "national interstate and defense highway system": it's technically there for the military, but in the meantime we let civilians drive around on the roads and use the power. Roll the spending into a defense bill and it might actually be politically feasible. It's genius.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
If the climate hiatus continues (or if the rise continues but is slower than anticipated), at what point in time will there be an admission that the climate models cannot forecast accurately? When you read the latest from the IPCC, they don't exactly quell the fears of alarmists. Yet the entire thing is conditioned upon models which have thus far been terrible. Models that are nowhere close to being able to forecast temperature. Seems silly that we don't have benchmarks or accountability at this point. Temperature will rise between X and Y by time Z, or else this thing is poo poo. This'll be year number 14, the imminent El Nino notwithstanding. I also wonder how people are going to deal with it if the hiatus happens to last another decade. Like if we're around the same temperature in 2025 (or say .1 degrees higher), how are the people who have so much tied into the oncoming collapse going to deal with that? The terse answer is to say they'd be happy that they were wrong, but that seems too simplistic. I think the desire (or even need) to be right is in some ways clouding the ability of people to analyze the situation rationally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think the desire (or even need) to be right is in some ways clouding the ability of people to analyze the situation rationally. You might want to think about that for a second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised you said that exactly like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Not that I personally have anything to do with it, but I've been right so far. Temperature models have been poo poo and the US has not (and will not) (and should not) do anything that would drastically impact the economy to address it. I think temperature is going to increase far slower than the IPCC predicts and will easily be able to be managed by technological advancements. Technology is advancing far faster than I think people realize on the energy front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not that I personally have anything to do with it, but I've been right so far. Temperature models have been poo poo and the US has not (and will not) (and should not) do anything that would drastically impact the economy to address it. I think temperature is going to increase far slower than the IPCC predicts and will easily be able to be managed by technological advancements. Hold up IPCC, Something Awful Dot Com forums poster Arkane is here to tell you how wrong you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I'm hardly the only one to notice that models aren't tracking temperature. In fact, it's not even a small number of people. Nature had a piece in their magazine about it a couple of months ago. You guys seem a bit wrapped up in the end of the world in this thread so maybe it'll take you guys a bit of time to catch up to the actual science. I think the disconnect with the IPCC is that their conclusions are all based on the climate models, and don't sufficiently account for the fact that the models could very well be dead wrong. One of the scientists (Richard Tol) that worked on the WG2 report from the IPCC asked for his name to be removed because he felt that they were making fear-causing claims without evidence to back it up. But getting back to it: Arkane posted:If the climate hiatus continues (or if the rise continues but is slower than anticipated), at what point in time will there be an admission that the climate models cannot forecast accurately? Seems like this is a question that is looming larger and larger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Personally I would love to be completely wrong. What happens in the Arkane view of the world though is that you externalize or ignore costs and phenomena that are already occurring. You view the extinction and systematically produced inequity on the planet as if they were somehow not connected to the same systemic action creating climate effect. You want to view climate effect in isolation and treat it as if it were some simple mechanistic thing. It's not. It is inherently complex. This means that normal control mechanisms and reductionists views of predictable outcomes don't really function in the same way. If in fact the pace is slower, and there is not some escalation in sudden, scaled catastrophic events, then this means we have more time to transition. It does not mean transition is not necessary. It does not mean that the areas of uncertainty suddenly become clear. You are deeply invested in a model that maintains your status as a beneficiary of the system creating the effect, as has been repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere. You never deal with that for some reason. That ideology has you externalize and ignore actual costs. You are progressing though. You have moved from outright denial, obfuscation and righteous indignation about how stupid everyone else is to bargaining. You now seem to admit that the effect is taking place. You seem to believe that technology is going to save us, thereby allowing the current system to continue to function as is (thus maintaining your model of self as an entitled beneficiary and that future in tact). You believe it can be reduced to a technological problem. The thing is, because the phenomena is highly interconnected and highly complex the models are difficult. Even so there is far, far more evidence from those than support for your view that we can continue in the current model. Your model for instance, holds that inequity will be addressed by the action of an imagined free market. There is quite literally no evidence for that. The production of that inequity is not separate from the forces producing climate effect and mass extinction, though I know you would like them to be. Climate effect is really just the easiest to see directly and model. And it comes down to risk assessment. Apparently you see some sort of huge risks with making the necessary transitions. Who and what exactly is at risk in that model? You delete the risks associated with not doing so. It's just self interest on your part however you may choose to package it. Sogol fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Richard Tol, the guy who asked for his name to be dropped because his paper on the effect of climate change on agriculture (out of 24 others) was not given undue emphasis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think the disconnect with the IPCC is that their conclusions are all based on the climate models, and don't sufficiently account for the fact that the models could very well be dead wrong. I mean what are they even thinking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:And in a closed system energy can come and go. Sheesh. I thing Sogol is a bit wordy (but generally good) but this is a bunch of people literally whining at a writing style and quibbling over a distinction that they don't understand. His writing style is terrible and near-impossible to parse hth
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Arkane's favorite book on global warming was written by an adjunct professor of business and the book was cited by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty for fabrication of data, selective discarding of unwanted results, deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, and plagiarism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Can we just change the thread title to "Climate Change thread: tl;dr - Put Arkane on ignore"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Seems like this is a question that is looming larger and larger. It's been explained to you, repeatedly, why there is no climate hiatus. We're all very sorry that you can't understand it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Arkane posted:If the climate hiatus continues (or if the rise continues but is slower than anticipated), at what point in time will there be an admission that the climate models cannot forecast accurately? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJJtS_WDmI
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Can we just change the thread title to "Climate Change thread: tl;dr - Put Arkane on ignore" I almost (but not really) appreciate having Arkane around in this thread. He is a stark reminder of why we're in this mess, with no realistic chance to turn things around. Human ignorance is the problem. Profit at all costs is the problem. People like Arkane who cherry-pick data, crop charts, and then declare themselves right constantly work to perpetuate ignorance on the subject, and thereby allow the destructive profit-seeking to continue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Beijing has been having a water shortage lately: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/world/asia/desalination-plant-beijing-china.html Are desalination plants really the best way to provide drinking water to drought-stricken areas? My impression is that they're expensive, require fossil fuel to power, and damage coastal ecosystems? I talked to a friend about climate change. He's on the quasi-doomsday "next 20 years are going to be catastrophic" boat. What's up with that view? My opinion: this is going to more gradual, with 3rd world countries getting shafted first. See: Pacific Islands, African countries. In other words, problems that are already here will intensify - there isn't going to be a anything suddenly cataclysmic. I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
As a lurker to the thread, I appreciate Arkane's posting since it is usually followed by sourced rebuttals of all his points, which ends up very informative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Beijing has been having a water shortage lately: It depends on a number of factor, especially geography and local climate. I don't know about Beijing, but I think in a lot of places in America making more use of grey water and treated water instead of dumping them in the ocean is a much better thing to focus on then desalination plants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I'm hardly the only one to notice that models aren't tracking temperature. In fact, it's not even a small number of people. Nature had a piece in their magazine about it a couple of months ago. You guys seem a bit wrapped up in the end of the world in this thread so maybe it'll take you guys a bit of time to catch up to the actual science. This man is a professor of economics. Do you have a link to this article in Nature you mention?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Beijing has been having a water shortage lately: Well more areas turning to poo poo increase migration, which will increase the pop density of the few good areas, snowballing. Plus the "just in time" commerce shipping system can't last. It's just a matter of time, we just don't know if it's 10 or 50 years away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Av027 posted:with no realistic chance to turn things around. I wouldn't exactly say this is true. However, governments definitely need to cooperate with the policy changes suggested by the IAC report, and corporations need to understand that global warming is ultimately tremendously unprofitable. These seem to be happening, but not fast enough. Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:tl;dr: we are so screwed, for certain values of "screwed." We can be less screwed if we don't give up! Definitely. It's wise to not underestimate human ingenuity. Sogol posted:2- technological and free market miracles. I support some people and processes that are working on some version of these things, but do not feel this is sufficient. I have said why and am happy to do so again. I'm planning to research renewable energy or carbon-trapping technology or something along those lines, once I finish my degree that is. I'd like to think I'm helping. Curious to know what you think is insufficient about technological change alone. Gamma Nerd fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:Curious to know what you think is insufficient about technological change alone. Why isn't the world running on fission reactors?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:Why isn't the world running on fission reactors? Large capital investments required and there's social factors against it. But until recently there were social factors against doing anything about fossil fuels (and the capital costs go without saying) so that's not really a convincing argument alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Large capital investments required and there's social factors against it. But until recently there were social factors against doing anything about fossil fuels (and the capital costs go without saying) so that's not really a convincing argument alone. Yes the next technological miracle will be cheap, safe, and loved by all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Arkane posted:If the climate hiatus continues (or if the rise continues but is slower than anticipated), at what point in time will there be an admission that the climate models cannot forecast accurately? EDIT: I'll save you a site:wattsupwiththat.com Google and tell you that he outsourced criticism on this one to Bob Tisdale, a rando denialist blogger with zero qualifications whose criticism consisted of repeatedly showing his rear end with regard to linear regression and the first law of thermodynamics. Elotana fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:Yes the next technological miracle will be cheap, safe, and loved by all. ...No? Nothing will ever be as cheap as coal or gas again, but that doesn't mean it will make civilization untenable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:I'm planning to research renewable energy or carbon-trapping technology or something along those lines, once I finish my degree that is. I'd like to think I'm helping. Curious to know what you think is insufficient about technological change alone. For whatever it is worth I think it is necessary and exactly the kind of thing to be doing. Necessary and in itself insufficient. Framed the by the ideology that Arkane represents it is worse than insufficient. There are two reasons I think this. The first is my assumption that global phenomena like climate effect aren't just happening, but are being actively produced. If you imagine that then you might wonder about the nature of the system involved in that production. Is first order change enough with respect to such a system? That is, can we simply do more of something we are already doing based on the same assumptions? Do we believe that we can eliminate the negative effects in order to maintain our current way of living? Many technological solutions are based on such first order thinking and require investment in and amplification of the system producing the effect. This does not mean we should not explore them. Or is second order change needed, in which there is a fundamental change in assumptions? This would be akin to when we shifted from imagining the stable earth at the center of the universe to an earth that is hurtling around the sun. So that is the second reason. I feel such a second order shift is needed. I feel both are needed and that either by itself will be insufficient. I also feel that the second order shifts are much more difficult. It is my hope that we can arrive at that together, rather than by being catastrophically informed by planetary events at a scale and pace greater than what is already occurring. It's non-linear in both cases so it is possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:...No? I don't understand where you get untenable from and you seem to be missing my point. His question was: "why is a technological advancement insufficient". I used a real world parallel in fission reactors. Listing reasons why fission reactors aren't more abundant doesn't counter my argument it just expands on why technology alone isn't an answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:I don't understand where you get untenable from and you seem to be missing my point. His question was: "why is a technological advancement insufficient". I used a real world parallel in fission reactors. Listing reasons why fission reactors aren't more abundant doesn't counter my argument it just expands on why technology alone isn't an answer. Part of technology is the propagation thereof, it's not just "I have an idea, therefore the world is saved".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Oh, an Arkane post! Here is a sample of some actual factual events happening right now as a result of the real and increasing climate change affecting our planet: quote:Ocean acidification making fish do strange things quote:Turtles Change Migration Routes Due to Climate Change quote:150,000 quote:Bombshell: Study Ties Epic California Drought, ‘Frigid East’ To Manmade Climate Change None of these articles are more than a few days old at most. Rest assured that when Arkane's next denial cycle rolls around there will once again have been more reports of the direct consequences of climate change than is feasible to post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Really not looking forward to El Niño. I've seen some crazy poo poo happen here before, more than a decade ago when I was a kid. I moved back to South America about a year ago and I bet it's going to be much worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Also, regarding energy usage, here's an interesting chart that breaks down how much energy we use (and waste), no CO2 measurements on it though:
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Part of technology is the propagation thereof, it's not just "I have an idea, therefore the world is saved". So where is the line in the sand that fission reactors have to cross for you to consider them part of technology? Tight Booty Shorts posted:Really not looking forward to El Niño. I've seen some crazy poo poo happen here before, more than a decade ago when I was a kid. I moved back to South America about a year ago and I bet it's going to be much worse. The El Niño isn't for sure this summer. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html Tanreall fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Tanreall posted:So where is the line in the sand that fission reactors have to cross for you to consider them part of technology? They are already? I mean they generate 10% of the US's energy. The only reason why they don't have more of a share is that it's economically viable to find substitutes (mostly fossil fuels) for them. Or to be accurate, it's economically viable to not replace fossil fuels with more fission plants, especially in light of social panics. Part of propagation is "is this viable enough for me to replace my existing system".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 03:30
|
|