|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:PS: I somehow came across this website when I was gathering images for the Science Corner and I knew I had to share it with you. Also, when you read it, be aware that the "Zetas" the blog refers to are aliens from the system Zeta Reticuli, an idea you may recall originated with the Aquarius Telex which was the forerunner to the MJ-12 documents. Shut it down. ___ / 
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
If the ice sheet over the antarctic warms enough, there may be a risk that huge chunks of it will slide into the water all at once. This would cause the sudden global catastrophic flooding you say is unlikely in Science Corner. I haven't studied this in detail, though, so take this with a pinch of salt. Is there anyone here who knows more?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Bobbin, that keypad you mentioned early in the video, the one with no code? You're right... In that the code is never given in game. Actually, the code itself is an easter egg, besides being the longest code in the game. It's 8675309. Try it. It works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
bman in 2288 posted:Bobbin, that keypad you mentioned early in the video, the one with no code? You're right... In that the code is never given in game. Actually, the code itself is an easter egg, besides being the longest code in the game. It's 8675309. Try it. It works. Not sure if you're aware of this, but since others likely aren't, let me make it clear: even this number is a reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTdTwcmxyo
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Here's a version of that song that's not locked to play only in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON56AKnqbog
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Not sure if you're aware of this, but since others likely aren't, let me make it clear: even this number is a reference. Yeah, I said it was an "easter egg", though "reference" would have been the better word. Though, to be fair, I had never heard of the song before before I heard of the code.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qkomja2qt72pjj4/Tommy%20Tutone%20-%20867-5309_Jenny.mp4?dl=0 I get annoyed with region locked youtube videos. This is the video Bobbin had linked, viewable for the climate-changed world. Is it true that only the icebergs that are above water or anchored and taller than the water level when they melt, actually have an effect on the water levels? It works like a cup of water filled with ice cubes? Scalding Coffee fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Sidenote from anything related to climate change, the Illuminati, and MJ12- I saw the Venice Baroque Orchestra preform Vivaldi's Four Seasons and a bit of The American Four Seasons by Philip Glass and man are they beautiful works of music.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Scalding Coffee posted:
Yes. Icebergs and things that float necessarily displace a volume equal to their own weight in water. When the frozen water melts it can't occupy any more or less space than it's own weight as a liquid. (And while I think I understand what you meant, a mass of ice above water isn't an iceberg, it's just ice, or a glacier.) But that's not the entire story, because the albedo of an iceberg is higher than water, meaning more heat gets absorbed by the equivalent patch of water than pack ice. That doesn't affect ocean levels, but could interfere with other climatic effects. Kangra fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Scalding Coffee posted:https://www.dropbox.com/s/qkomja2qt72pjj4/Tommy%20Tutone%20-%20867-5309_Jenny.mp4?dl=0 Melting icebergs will not appreciably effect sea level. That water is already in the ocean, and displace pretty much the same amount of water that they contain, so as they melt the ocean level will stay mostly the same. Unfortunately, there is a shitload of water contained in glaciers, which are on land. When they melt, water that was not previously in the ocean goes to the ocean, which has the obvious result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Scalding Coffee posted:Is it true that only the icebergs that are above water or anchored and taller than the water level when they melt, actually have an effect on the water levels? It works like a cup of water filled with ice cubes? A free-floating iceberg has already affected the sea level; around 90% of it is underwater. It's more that Antarctica is surrounded on several sides by ice shelves which rest on the water but are attached to the land. Because they occupy that space, the glaciers on land cannot melt into the ocean, but once that ice is gone the glaciers will have plenty of room. This could potentially accelerate the rate at which the sea level rises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
e; lmao wrong phone number song
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
A small tip: you can Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V text within the game, so you don't have to remember long/unmemorable passwords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Marker17501 posted:A small tip: you can Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V text within the game, so you don't have to remember long/unmemorable passwords.  gently caress, this is going to change everything next time I play through again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
I suppose Dr. Pinkerton's name is ALSO a reference to the American private security force, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure where I saw this specifically - it's been ages since I messed with any sort of natural science stuff - but is it possible that the planet could end up frying under the effects of an endless positive feedback loop?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
No. Our atmosphere is no longer thick enough for that to happen, nor are we close enough to the sun. It could get drat hot worldwide, but we will never have a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus unless the solar system as a whole changes significantly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
How useless is the flamethrower? Watching you skip all those napalm canisters since you got max ammo in the first levels of the game and never used a single one of them made me wonder if I ever ended up actually using the weapon. Somehow I get the mental image of people running around on fire using the same AI as when you shoot them with a tranquilizer dart. That picture at 23:56 - where is that from, and how do I get there? :|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
SirDifferential posted:How useless is the flamethrower? Watching you skip all those napalm canisters since you got max ammo in the first levels of the game and never used a single one of them made me wonder if I ever ended up actually using the weapon. Somehow I get the mental image of people running around on fire using the same AI as when you shoot them with a tranquilizer dart. It is completely useless. The inclination is to run charging at a guy flames blasting, but each unit of fuel is like a half second of flame. A full flame canister is good for like 2-3 kills unless you sneak up on people and use it as an assassination weapon. Which actually makes me consider doing a flamethrower/baton only run someday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Re: global warming, have this site. http://www.heywhatsthat.com/layers.html It's good to visualize exactly how hosed your local area is regarding sea level rise. As an aside, I live near Venice and have a couple friends who actually live in Venice. To understand how common flooding is, the city only gives warnings if the tide is expected to be more than 150 cm above mean sea level. Lots of places in the city are way lower than that (Saint Mark's Square, for instance, is at 80 cm), and people are expected to suck it up and not complain about getting their homes and business flooded twice a day. They treat it as a minor inconvenience. (Ought to be mentioned that flooding in Venice is not due to global warming but due to the city slowly sinking. Global warming only plays a very minor role in the whole thing.) Mikl fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
SirDifferential posted:How useless is the flamethrower? Watching you skip all those napalm canisters since you got max ammo in the first levels of the game and never used a single one of them made me wonder if I ever ended up actually using the weapon. Somehow I get the mental image of people running around on fire using the same AI as when you shoot them with a tranquilizer dart. It's really really good against regular biological enemies out of water and if it uses ammo fast, you only need one flame sprite to connect to stunlock and kill someone. Mechs, MiBs, and robots are all totally immune to it. It's an eight slot weapon. Its tough to justify compared to the sniper rifle or DT sword. Like a lot of things in SSMA games, you can make it work well enough, but there are other paths of least resistance. I like using it to go kill crazy early game, and have usually dropped it by Hong Kong at the latest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
What is China trying to do to get out of being the world's leading producer of pollution? Something has to give and developing countries shouldn't be punished.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
I missed hearing those seagulls  it's the first time we hear them since the very beginning of the game back on that dock in New York...so many days ago. At least I think it's days right, I mean how long has JC been out there?I also really like they reuse the MJ12 facility music specifically because of their influence, I like themes that become leitmotifs since it gives a rebirth of emotions you experience and associate to dealing with the same enemy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Scalding Coffee posted:What is China trying to do to get out of being the world's leading producer of pollution? Something has to give and developing countries shouldn't be punished. They'll probably just try to build a giant fan to push the smog cloud over Japan or something equally ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Scalding Coffee posted:What is China trying to do to get out of being the world's leading producer of pollution? Something has to give and developing countries shouldn't be punished. They do a ton of work reducing pollution in developing nations. Under the Kyoto Protocol, nations can reduce their own pollution, or spend bucks to help other nations reduce their carbon footprint by an equivalent amount. China has not been good about reducing their own footprints, but they do a ton of work on other developing nations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
The consensus predictions of mean surface temperature rise from CO2 are greatly exaggerated. 25 years from the first IPCC report (out of a 100-year timescale), we've not passed even the lower bounds of literally every MST anomaly prediction the IPCC has made. How can we base such vast economic restructuring on forecasts that are not only wrong, they have never even been close to right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:The consensus predictions of mean surface temperature rise from CO2 are greatly exaggerated. 25 years from the first IPCC report (out of a 100-year timescale), we've not passed even the lower bounds of literally every MST anomaly prediction the IPCC has made. How can we base such vast economic restructuring on forecasts that are not only wrong, they have never even been close to right? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:The consensus predictions of mean surface temperature rise from CO2 are greatly exaggerated. 25 years from the first IPCC report (out of a 100-year timescale), we've not passed even the lower bounds of literally every MST anomaly prediction the IPCC has made. How can we base such vast economic restructuring on forecasts that are not only wrong, they have never even been close to right? The massive reduction in CFC use due to the Montreal Protocol and reductions in use of other chlorinated hydrocarbons like HFCs and HCFCs has damped down some of the predicted increases from the 1990 IPCC report, but even with that the MST anomaly has increased by ~0.16 deg C/decade since 1990. That's about where they predicted things would be with moderate improvements in regulation, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that they're "not even close to right"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Those stairs near all the Gray Death canisters and scientists, allows people to crush those below them by walking on them. A scientist hosed up my face with him walking over me. You saw how the dead guard was almost floating on the stairs. I killed a guard by doing that before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Steak Flavored Gum posted:The massive reduction in CFC use due to the Montreal Protocol and reductions in use of other chlorinated hydrocarbons like HFCs and HCFCs has damped down some of the predicted increases from the 1990 IPCC report, but even with that the MST anomaly has increased by ~0.16 deg C/decade since 1990. That's about where they predicted things would be with moderate improvements in regulation, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that they're "not even close to right"? GISS, GHCN and HadCRUT4 all show about 0.15 C/decade since 1990, IPCC AR1 predicted 0.30 C/decade, a 100% overprediction even after predicting current CO2 concentrations rather successfully. The full range for the prediction is 0.2-0.5 C/decade which is at best a 33% overprediction and at worst 230%. If you take the estimated impact of CFC reduction (up to 24% of forcing according to AR1) into account by subtracting it's hypothetical effect there still remains an overprediction of ~50%. The current anomaly rise is similar to that predicted in the "progressively increasing emissions controls" scenario which has obviously not occurred - CO2 increase continued unabated even during the great recession. If your claim is that CFCs are wholly responsible for the lower anomaly/decade, then that puts quite harsh limits on what you can use for model CO2 sensitivity, much lower than the current values of 2-4 C. The evidence for an increasing mean global surface temperature is overwhelming, but the ability for any ensemble of models to predict it, much less specific regional changes that can influence public planning, has yet to be proven.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Re: global warming, have this site. Welp, I just learned that I and my family are safe even if the water level rises 200 feet. Most of Denmark is under water at that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
I was wondering how long it would take for a climate change Soricidus fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
I feel pretty well-informed about the atrocities of the second world war, but I wouldn't put it past Bobbin to teach me something new, or something I hadn't considered before. I have severe doubts we'd get any Holocaust deniers here, but hey, maybe we'll get lucky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
I just came here to complain that the first and only time I finished Deus Ex I came in with a strong moral compass and tried not to kill anyone... I derived much more playtime from those later levels. gently caress you, Bobbin Threadbare. And probably most players.  Thanks for the LP. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:GISS, GHCN and HadCRUT4 all show about 0.15 C/decade since 1990, IPCC AR1 predicted 0.30 C/decade, a 100% overprediction even after predicting current CO2 concentrations rather successfully. The full range for the prediction is 0.2-0.5 C/decade which is at best a 33% overprediction and at worst 230%. The 0.2-0.5 deg C/decade number that you're quoting was built off models where the acceleration in the MST anomaly over the 20th century continued unabated, with doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels by 2025, which isn't happening. Sure, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased since 1990, but massive improvements in energy efficiency in the transportation sector and electricity use have improved emissions considerably. Meanwhile, a near total elimination of CFCs and HCFCs worldwide has caused their concentrations to level off and some are gradually dropping out now. Scenarios B/C from the 1990 IPCC report are much closer to the current state of affairs wrt regulations, and they predict substantially lower MST anomaly changes of about 0.1 deg C/decade or lower, which is more in line with the anomaly change from the early 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
 
double nine fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:I was wondering how long it would take for a climate change At this point I'm genuinely curious on what lecture comes next rather than what we'll see next. Mordaedil posted:I feel pretty well-informed about the atrocities of the second world war, but I wouldn't put it past Bobbin to teach me something new, or something I hadn't considered before. Though again I'm not sure how that even can play into a Deus Ex lecture but hey I would like to know more about anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:I was wondering how long it would take for a climate change
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Steak Flavored Gum posted:The 0.2-0.5 deg C/decade number that you're quoting was built off models where the acceleration in the MST anomaly over the 20th century continued unabated, with doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels by 2025, which isn't happening. Sure, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased since 1990, but massive improvements in energy efficiency in the transportation sector and electricity use have improved emissions considerably. Meanwhile, a near total elimination of CFCs and HCFCs worldwide has caused their concentrations to level off and some are gradually dropping out now. Scenarios B/C from the 1990 IPCC report are much closer to the current state of affairs wrt regulations, and they predict substantially lower MST anomaly changes of about 0.1 deg C/decade or lower, which is more in line with the anomaly change from the early 20th century. You need to re-read AR1, scenario A assumed doubling of pre-industrial CO2 (270-280ppm doubled to 540ppm) in 70 years, so by 2060, not 2025. We're on track to 480ppm CO2 by 2050 at 20ppm/decade with CO2 equivalents kicking in some (~80ppm CO2 equivalent currently) which is at best halfway between Scenario A and B. That's still a large 25-50% overprediction - would you feel comfortable refusing to allocate water to farms or cities based on it? I definitely would not. The treaty regulating CFCs and HCFCs applied only to ozone-depleting elements - R-410A and R-22 production and atmospheric concentration has increased, outpacing the drop in halons and CFC-11/12 (final EU phaseout in 2 months!). They aren't as ozone-depleting but they have a massive warming potential with 1 kg equivalent to about ~4100 kg CO2 (if you use the traditional 2.5-5 CO2 doubling sensitivity). As for energy efficiency, the Jevons paradox comes to mind. Unless you're hoping that energy efficiency will increase to the point where it finally counteracts global emissions growth, which would be nice but definitely is not in any of the IPCC ARs. Soricidus posted:denier
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
Decoy Badger posted:Who in this thread is saying that the Earth's surface is not currently warming? Now, I'm not saying temperatures are not rising, but there's nothing to worry about it. The modern In other words, models can be wrong and can be criticized, but you have to keep in mind that there's a massive amount of selfish assholes with a vested interest in denying climate change that employ every underhanded tactic in the book to undermine awareness. If you want to criticize the models, make sure your arguments can be distinguished from those employed by deniers and their brainwashed conspiracy theorists. For example, don't  on how you never said you denied global warming when your posts have clear denial undertones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 20:31
|
|
