|
Arkane posted:This is unironically exactly what is going to happen and it's going to be awesome. Ladies and Gentlemen, Thankyou and Goodnight.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Stalin was bad, therefore the future is amazing!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Rhetoric aside, the recent era of uncontested global capitalism does seem to have been broadly beneficial for the developing world, even as it's increased inequality and threatened the financial security of the middle and lower classes of the West. There's cause for concern about the situations of the very poorest, and whether they'll be completely left behind by these changes. Likewise, as to the eventual fates of those of us in the formerly privileged position of "not rich, but American." Not everyone is going to end up rich. But most people do appear to be better off, at least as far as economic well-being is concerned. The connection of this to climate change is somewhat tangential, though. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Alright, so I just did the math and I ended up with a little less than 4C. I went back and double checked, and yeah, I made a mistake somewhere. I got close to your numbers. I apologize. My real mistake was that I focused on the wrong thing. What I SHOULD have done is called you out on the fact that assuming that equation holds true as well as assuming that the climate sensitivity remains constant are both wild, wild assumptions that betray complete ignorance of what's going on. No reasonable person who understands the situation would let those assumptions fly, because they're nonsensical. The equation is both simplistic (as it noted) and climate sensitivity is not constant. Assuming they are and acting like the back of the napkin calculations are at all valid is completely wrong on its own. All of this on top of the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists understand this better and have a consensus that the climate sensitivity is high enough that it's a problem. You then try to come into the conversation and throw your dick around like it's meaningful somehow when it's not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Arkane posted:This is unironically exactly what is going to happen and it's going to be awesome. Fukuyama parachute account detected
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:What I SHOULD have done is called you out on the fact that assuming that equation holds true as well as assuming that the climate sensitivity remains constant are both wild, wild assumptions that betray complete ignorance of what's going on. No reasonable person who understands the situation would let those assumptions fly, because they're nonsensical. The equation is both simplistic (as it noted) and climate sensitivity is not constant. Assuming they are and acting like the back of the napkin calculations are at all valid is completely wrong on its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:So, having found that the math actually does support his claim, your response is to throw the math out entirely. Huh. Like I said, it was a mistake. When I initially thought there was a math error, I tunnel visioned into it. The point is that (pretty clearly, in my case) neither of us have a good enough understanding of the entirety of the situation to be making such specific claims as "we're only hitting 4C if we get 2300 PPM into the atmosphere" without it essentially being made up fairy numbers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Most people don't coal roll. Most people don't really give a poo poo about the specifics, they just think that doing anything about it is too expensive. The reality is likely that it is not, and this is the important argument to change peoples' minds. Nobody is going to care about global warming until it physically affects them, but the health implications of pollution already affects people, but they just don't realize it. No, most people do not coal roll but most people can't be convinced of even little things like "if you go one day a week without eating meat you'll be doing way more than you think." Americans in particular just flat out don't want to make any sacrifices at all. Things like carbon taxes, developing cleaner technology, switching to sustainable power sources, etc. all cost money now and that means that I might have to wait an extra year before replacing my car or eat fewer steaks and you know what, gently caress that noise. Who cares if 50 years from now the world will catch on fire? I want a steak and an SUV today. America is also very prone to conspicuous consumption. One of the most baffling things I've seen in the States is people just throwing out insane amounts of food because "meh, gently caress it, who cares." The other side of it is effort. Recycling is where this really comes to mind. A gently caress ton of people just outright refuse to do things like "have two separate containers for garbage and put recyclable stuff in the blue one."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:18
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Things like carbon taxes, developing cleaner technology, switching to sustainable power sources, etc. all cost money now and that means that I might have to wait an extra year before replacing my car or eat fewer steaks and you know what, gently caress that noise. Who cares if 50 years from now the world will catch on fire? I want a steak and an SUV today. Carbon taxes don't have to cost anyone money. Redistribute the gains per capita to the population. I don't know why there are so many people hell bent on defending the status quo, but there are plenty of easy cheap things that can be done that simply won't because our political systems aren't going to let it happen. Unless you're willing to face that reality I don't know what the point in even having a conversation is. Climate change is a social problem and no, we aren't going to "stop" it but if you want to reduce its impact or slow it down or whatever your goal may be, without significant political reforms we won't see significant economic reforms and thus won't see the reforms necessary to put those easy cheap plans into action. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Like I said, it was a mistake. When I initially thought there was a math error, I tunnel visioned into it. The point is that (pretty clearly, in my case) neither of us have a good enough understanding of the entirety of the situation to be making such specific claims as "we're only hitting 4C if we get 2300 PPM into the atmosphere" without it essentially being made up fairy numbers. Frankly, I also don't think that you would have switched to this "none of it means anything" stance if Arkane had been the one to make the error. ToxicSlurpee posted:America is also very prone to conspicuous consumption. One of the most baffling things I've seen in the States is people just throwing out insane amounts of food because "meh, gently caress it, who cares." Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Lemming posted:All of this on top of the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists understand this better and have a consensus that the climate sensitivity is high enough that it's a problem. You then try to come into the conversation and throw your dick around like it's meaningful somehow when it's not. This is just flat out wrong. The recent papers on climate sensitivity are all coming out around the same figures in terms of a lowered median sensitivity. The ECS figures differ massively from climate models and the IPCC report -- the median ECS number of 1.64C in the Lewis & Curry paper is far lower than the 3C median figure in IPCC AR5. We're still in the midst of a hiatus as we speak, which is only going to further dampen our observational estimates for sensitivity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That's not conspicuous consumption. That depends on the person. I worked in a restaurant for five years and trust me, there are people that will order a poo poo load of food and throw over half of it out for no reason other than because they can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It doesn't seem especially absurd to me to apply a new study's estimates of climate sensitivity to the equations which involve them, to figure out what they imply about the rate of warming. It might not be an iron-clad prediction, but I don't think the equation modeling radiative forcing from CO2 is completely meaningless, either. I agree it's not meaningless, just that pretending it'll scale perfectly up to 2300 PPM and ignore all the other effects that will happen along the way to that happening is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I agree it's not meaningless, just that pretending it'll scale perfectly up to 2300 PPM and ignore all the other effects that will happen along the way to that happening is. It was just an example to show the ramifications if the figure is accurate. I picked 4C because people in this thread throw around 4C by 2100 as if it's a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Arkane posted:It was just an example to show the ramifications if the figure is accurate. But it doesn't work as an example because for it to hold true would require wild, unverifiable assumptions. Assumptions that you are not in any position to pretend are valid, and yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Lemming posted:But it doesn't work as an example because for it to hold true would require wild, unverifiable assumptions. Assumptions that you are not in any position to pretend are valid, and yet here we are. Doesn't require any wild, unverifiable assumptions. This is a study using observational data and coming to statistical conclusions about the ability of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to increase temperature on Earth. You want to know what requires wild, unverifiable assumptions? Climate models. poo poo, climate models build unverified assumptions on top of other unverified assumptions. But they're definitely accurate, eh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Doesn't require any wild, unverifiable assumptions. This is a study using observational data and coming to statistical conclusions about the ability of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to increase temperature on Earth. "Because I don't understand what I'm talking about, nobody does. I'm going to go do surgery on my own guts, what do doctors know? It's all made up bullshit anyway. A doctor tells me not to lick a corpse to avoid Ebola but what does that fuckin' guy know? I'm going to lick whatever I want!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That depends on the person. I worked in a restaurant for five years and trust me, there are people that will order a poo poo load of food and throw over half of it out for no reason other than because they can. Lemming posted:But it doesn't work as an example because for it to hold true would require wild, unverifiable assumptions. Assumptions that you are not in any position to pretend are valid, and yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Even if that's precisely true, it's still not conspicuous consumption, which is a specific concept referring to consumption for the purposes of demonstrating wealth. This sounds more like, I don't know. Apathetic consumption. Or just standard "waste." From the climate sensitivity wiki entry: quote:For coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate models (e.g. CMIP5) the climate sensitivity is an emergent property: it is not a model parameter, but rather a result of a combination of model physics and parameters. By contrast, simpler energy-balance models may have climate sensitivity as an explicit parameter. So yes, it is in fact a major assumption that climate sensitivity will hold both for as long as it would theoretically take to dump that much CO2 into the atmosphere but also that no physical changes will happen in the world to cause it to change at all, and that a simplistic equation of the form X = Y*Z might not be completely valid and accurate. This is exactly my point. People here are drawing conclusions from papers they barely understand and the conclusions require making assumptions they're not qualified in any way to make, and then acting as if referencing a paper gives them the authority in the conversation. It's ludicrous. I don't think people shouldn't try to improve their understanding, but the approach should be "what can I try to learn from this?" rather than "aha! This paper says global warming isn't a problem! We can dump 2000PPM into the atmosphere and we'd still be fine!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Arkane posted:This is unironically exactly what is going to happen and it's going to be awesome. You need to get your head looked at 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Even if that's precisely true, it's still not conspicuous consumption, which is a specific concept referring to consumption for the purposes of demonstrating wealth. This sounds more like, I don't know. Apathetic consumption. Or just standard "waste." Yeah, people just like variety! I don't see any value in mandating people do x and y, that's a lot of people to control. I read an idea either here or somewhere that the best solution is actually to rebuild our industry, old factories that need to be put out of its misery. New designs offer more efficiency, create new jobs that are of value. There is no impetus to do this under capitalism, it is a lot of new CAPEX to amortize, cutting into profits. Like its great if technology can save us, but if were too cheap to buy it, what's the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You need to get your head looked at I'm sure the economic system more adept at tackling problems is being cooked up right here in the D&D think tank, in between sessions of DOTA and Princess Maker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Does anyone have an actual critique of Hans Rosling? The date is pretty clear imo. Infant mortality, life expectancy and poverty metrics are all improving in the developing world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I'm sure the economic system more adept at tackling problems is being cooked up right here in the D&D think tank, in between sessions of DOTA and Princess Maker. Why are you trolling so hard for another ban? You know you can just ask the mods to do it for you. But yea, that's too bad about Capitalism. I guess we will just have to find a way to solve problems and improve quality of life for everyone without consolidating wealth into the hands of an elitist oligarchical in-circle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Why are you trolling so hard for another ban? You know you can just ask the mods to do it for you. Hey- That insanely greedy hoarding of the riches derived from our planet's limited resources has given any person in the world the ability to easily purchase a cold coca cola! Real progress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Why are you trolling so hard for another ban? You know you can just ask the mods to do it for you. Hang on, I'm trolling by making a snarky comment? There's like 15 snarky comments directed at me in the past 2 pages. There are surely bigger concerns in your life than me making a joke. Berk Berkly posted:But yea, that's too bad about Capitalism. I guess we will just have to find a way to solve problems and improve quality of life for everyone without consolidating wealth into the hands of an elitist oligarchical in-circle. Who do you think controls the money in non-capitalist countries? To quote a smart man, who are these angels that are going to distribute the wealth without themselves being corrupted? It's a fairy tale. It's been tried and failed, sometimes with millions of deaths as the result. Within the realm of a capitalist and democratic system, one can have an argument about government's role & about income disparities, but ultimately you can't escape the fact that nothing is better than free markets. We're a smart, hard-working species, and capitalism builds on that. Poverty in Africa is going to be solved by entrepreneurial Africans starting businesses, hiring people, etc. It'll happen in our lifetimes. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation postulate that within 20 years there might not be any poor countries left on the planet. Even if they're a decade or two off, that's still incredibly quickly in the big picture. Getting back to this topic, capitalism is going to be our best tool against fighting climate change. Just look at the varied areas where we're working. We have mainstream electric cars possibly a couple years away -- the brainchild of a South African immigrant who came to the US because he thought it would offer the best shot at starting a business. We have solar panel efficiencies being developed and panels being installed on a large and accelerating scale in the US. Every 6 months you hear about a new solar company IPO. We have various universities working on carbon capture technology. We have a private US company that has said they're on the cusp of fusion energy, which would not only transform energy use on this planet but could get us to other planets and beyond. We have IBM who has Watson, a supercomputer that will partly be devoted to trying to find efficient ways to improve Africa. The list goes and on. This is incredibly exciting. What's North Korea got cooking these days? How about Cuba, they got anything brewing to tackle climate change? Surely the Venezuelan government is working hard on something...I mean that just goes without saying that it's a top priority for them and definitely the top priority isn't scamming their entire population of the oil money and enriching themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Within the realm of a capitalist and democratic system, one can have an argument about government's role & about income disparities, but ultimately you can't escape the fact that nothing is better than free markets. There really is no point in arguing with you is there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
joeburz posted:There really is no point in arguing with you is there? He said humans are a hard working species and then mentions as an example the continent of Africa  Capitalism is both the problem and the answer to the worlds poor!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Does anyone have an actual critique of Hans Rosling? The date is pretty clear imo. Infant mortality, life expectancy and poverty metrics are all improving in the developing world. Of course they are. Capitalism is a rising tide that lifts all boats while firing torpedoes at the smallest ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
joeburz posted:There really is no point in arguing with you is there? This is an argument? joeburz posted:Stalin was bad, therefore the future is amazing! Or are these arguments? Kurnugia posted:Fukuyama parachute account detected Tight Booty Shorts posted:You need to get your head looked at Tight Booty Shorts posted:Hey- That insanely greedy hoarding of the riches derived from our planet's limited resources has given any person in the world the ability to easily purchase a cold coca cola! Real progress. I responded to the only post with content man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Arkane, I want you to know that the following question is entirely sincere and unsarcastic despite having nothing to do with anything you are currently saying, and is being asked solely because I've been curious about it for a while and you seem to be on a post spree right now. Are there any other positions you hold - beyond your stance on anthropogenic climate change - that have been informed to some degree by the writings and views of Michael Crichton?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
My replies were in response to some terrible thought-out argument that capitalism is the savior and we should all just bow down and accept the free market to guide us in the right direction because you're of the opinion that there is no better. Do you really need a 500 word response on how idiotic that is? Capitalism is the direct cause of most of the issues we see today, despite any quality of life improvements brought upon the backs of millions dead and billions exploited in the process. The fact that one company is bucking the trend with their electric vehicles doesn't stand as a commendation of capitalism, because it is labeled as directly opposing the overwhelming majority in its "trend bucking". You handwave all the flaws, while taking any outliers and co-opting their achievements as capitalism working as intended 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:He said humans are a hard working species and then mentions as an example the continent of Africa You could've posted the same snarky poo poo about Asia 20 years ago. How are they doing with free markets? China opened up its markets and exploded. The biggest movement of people out of poverty in the history of mankind. When African investment starts happening on a large scale, we'll see similar explosive growth. You're just wrong, very very wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You could've posted the same snarky poo poo about Asia 20 years ago. How are they doing with free markets? China opened up its markets and exploded. The biggest movement of people out of poverty in the history of mankind. When peasants in China became factory wage slaves in giant polluted un-livable cities with overcrowded barracks and working for pennies on the dollar things got better for them because now the factory boss gets to drive a mercedes
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: We tortured some folks > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - This is the capitalism thread right guys?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Drakyn posted:Arkane, I want you to know that the following question is entirely sincere and unsarcastic despite having nothing to do with anything you are currently saying, and is being asked solely because I've been curious about it for a while and you seem to be on a post spree right now. Your question is insincere since you're implying that Crichton informed my view. He didn't inform my view, but he did say things that I agree with 100%. He's going to end up being right that the crisis was highly exaggerated. It's an example of someone looking at the data and seeing something wrong in future predictions (at least some of the more dire predictions). He came at it from the perspective of a Democrat and an Al Gore voter, so it's not like he was hell-bent on trying to fight off this upstart climate change movement. That's interesting to me. Another reason that I liked his perspective is that he wrote books for a living, and knew that people craved conflict. Without conflict, a book is pointless. Dovetailing into that, he said something similar to this: faced with a prediction of future disaster from someone at least mildly informed or someone telling you that "eh everything is probably going to work out", which opinion is going to interest you more? Humanity loves the disaster story. I posted it a few pages back that Malthusian type disasters (not necessarily just food shortage, but some global calamity) have been predicted every now and again. I think the biggest misconception with climate change is that scientific knowledge of the greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions and rising temperatures necessitates an agreement with climate models. That it necessitates an agreement with those saying that extreme weather events are likely to increase on a dramatic scale. That it necessitates the predictions about massive sea level rise. This is not the case at all. And in fact you can see with the hiatus in temperature that scientific battle lines are being drawn around climate models and climate sensitivities, both of which would appear to have been biased high. And perhaps very high.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think the biggest misconception with climate change is that scientific knowledge of the greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions and rising temperatures necessitates an agreement with climate models. That it necessitates an agreement with those saying that extreme weather events are likely to increase on a dramatic scale. That it necessitates the predictions about massive sea level rise. This is not the case at all. And in fact you can see with the hiatus in temperature that scientific battle lines are being drawn around climate models and climate sensitivities, both of which would appear to have been biased high. And perhaps very high. What?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:What? If you take science out of context it is really easy to try and make it do what you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Hang on, I'm trolling by making a snarky comment? There's like 15 snarky comments directed at me in the past 2 pages. There are surely bigger concerns in your life than me making a joke. holy poo poo dude you are approaching my imaginary gf levels of funny. Ignore everyone yelling at you, never stop posting
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:58 |
|
Drakyn posted:Arkane, I want you to know that the following question is entirely sincere and unsarcastic despite having nothing to do with anything you are currently saying, and is being asked solely because I've been curious about it for a while and you seem to be on a post spree right now. I can't believe you actually got him to post for paragraphs about agreeing with Michael Chrichton. This is the best climate change Arkane derail in a long time Arkane posted:the hiatus in temperature 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:07
|
|