|
Brother Friendship posted:Fewer people would obviously be better for the planet but those studies are relatively limited because they boil down the production of another human to a set of numbers. Accurate numbers that make it very clear what it means to have a child in the first world, but limited all the same. An ecological and responsible society does not appear over night and traditions to build a better world must be handed down. From my experience families are the most effective way at passing those traditions down, both good and bad. I'd rather 10% more humans on the planet if that 10% actively and effectively pushed the planet towards the equilibrium it demands. This all assumes that people cannot change their minds after birth, right? Just wondering why we need to have more people to change minds.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually it uses less energy to provide A/C than heat where it snows. Since it takes the exact same amount of energy to heat or cool a given volume of air one degree, and since many heaters approach perfect efficiency, I'm guessing this is because areas where it's hot aren't as extremely hot as areas that are cold are extremely cold?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805 Not really familiar with the park, but he does state that it's the rainforest portion of the park that caught fire for the first time in living history. At a glance, it looks like Hoh Rain Forest is in the west central part of the park - sounds like it's a smaller area that previously hasn't caught fire due to the rainforests natural resistance to fire (wetter, cooler, darker, etc)? Drought may have caused it to be more susceptible to fire from lightning strikes - which the map seems to indicate as the cause in that area. Edit: quote:The Guardian briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated. As an IT guy, I can say this is hilariously non-relevant though. Failure to implement proper environmental control in a server room has nothing to do with the temperature outside. Av027 fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Since it takes the exact same amount of energy to heat or cool a given volume of air one degree, and since many heaters approach perfect efficiency, I'm guessing this is because areas where it's hot aren't as extremely hot as areas that are cold are extremely cold? I think it uses less energy to move the heat (cooling) than it does to generate the heat (heating). But your correct that the main effect is because we have a lot more degrees of warming to do than degrees of cooling: quote:Yes, A/C units have grown in popularity, but they are not more of a threat to the environment than heaters; in fact, they may be the lesser sin. Analyses of home-energy use reveal that we use more energy to heat our homes (41.7 million BTUs per year, on average, at a cost of $631) than to cool them (7.8 million BTUs, at $276). That’s true even though millions of people have moved into the hot and humid metropolises of the Sun Belt since the 1970s. In fact, as Cox himself points out, that southward migration produced a net decline in energy use for climate control, since all the extra demand for electricity—in the frigid shopping centers of Houston, Phoenix, and elsewhere—has been more than offset by a reduced need for oil- and gas-based home heating. As of a few years ago, homeowners in cold states like Minnesota were putting out 20 to 25 percent more carbon dioxide through the use of their heaters than were the A/C-happy folks in Florida.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Since it takes the exact same amount of energy to heat or cool a given volume of air one degree, and since many heaters approach perfect efficiency, I'm guessing this is because areas where it's hot aren't as extremely hot as areas that are cold are extremely cold? There are lots of factors, and I don't like the generalization that AC "uses less energy to provide A/C than heat where it snows." Arguably, in a location where it snows, you should have relatively little need for AC, while heating is obligatory, and the claim only applies to a small fraction of the world's population, few of whom have AC anyway. The logic behind the claim might be that if the AC keeps a space at 20C inside when it's 35C outside, that's a temperature difference of 15C, while if it's -10C outside, a heater needs to maintain a 30C difference. It depends on humidity too. To heat or cool Florida air one degree takes more energy than heating or cooling the same volume of air in Arizona. If it's less or more humid in the winter in a particular location, then this could result in either heating or AC using more energy to maintain the same temperature. The only inefficiency that you are likely to have in a heating element is if it makes noise or other vibrations, and they will typically be absorbed by the structure and converted to heat anyway, while a cooling unit must have inefficiencies, since imperfections in the design or manufacture will always lead to heat production.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/YL5Xd0TpZa8 Always fun to see Dr. Spencer on FOX.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:https://youtu.be/YL5Xd0TpZa8 And the guy he's interviewing is supposed to be ex-NASA scientist. How the gently caress is he saying climate change isn't happening because of the human impact? I don't get it... The guy obviously is intelligent, yet from that video I'd say he's an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Stockholm Syndrome posted:And the guy he's interviewing is supposed to be ex-NASA scientist. How the gently caress is he saying climate change isn't happening because of the human impact? I don't get it... The guy obviously is intelligent, yet from that video I'd say he's an idiot. According to his Wiki article he actually hits all of the main denialist points: "Catastrophic manmade global warming is not occurring" -> Depending on your subjective definition of catastrophic. "The medieval warm period existed" -> It did, it sucked a lot and we're about to bring about another, bigger warm period. ""Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"" -> The Medieval Warm Period and various ice ages clearly show that it's not. The clip does get a few things right though. The media sometimes attributes a weather event to global warming which is very silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:According to his Wiki article he actually hits all of the main denialist points: There is, of course, the possibility that he's being paid or otherwise given something in return for supporting a denialist position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Since the BBC saw fit to state on its front page today that July was the hottest month since records began, I thought I'd resurrect this thread and see if we can have some more arguments. (Where's Arkane, by the way?) Here are some other months that have occurred recently: (global combined land and ocean surface temperatures) June - Hottest ever. May - Hottest ever. April - 4th hottest ever. March - Hottest ever. February - 2nd hottest ever. January - 2nd hottest ever. December - Hottest ever. November - 7th hottest ever (weak - try harder next time). October - Hottest ever. September - Hottest ever. August - Hottest ever. Stopped looking here. Ok, let's see how the arctic sea ice is doing.  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Ah, two standard deviations below 1981-2010 average... well, at least it's not 2012, I guess. Happy El Niño 2015-16 everyone 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
My argument is that we're incredibly hosed and thinking about it makes me suicidally depressed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
I think I'm through the depressed phase of dabda and finally to acceptance, I've certainly done my doomsaying in this thread and elsewhere, and I suppose ready to move forward. If only the gubberment, corporations, think tanks, etc etc could get on board. Edit - The ice clearly goes back up at the end of that chart we will be okay
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:My argument is that we're incredibly hosed and thinking about it makes me suicidally depressed. Cheer up, it's not your fault, we just have to many people on the planet. Bottom line is there is only enough ice to raise the ocean 35 feet, so large portions of land will still be above water. The climate may be a unbearable shitstorm of extremes, but some one will live (probably to gently caress things up again) to continue the human species.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:My argument is that we're incredibly hosed and thinking about it makes me suicidally depressed. Well, committing suicide is a good way to permanently reduce your carbon footprint to zero!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, committing suicide is a good way to permanently reduce your carbon footprint to zero! Right. Its also not something we want to encourage people to do, you moron. The other option is to try our best every day to fix this problem. I for one, would rather keep trying to make life better for people in any way I can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:My argument is that we're incredibly hosed and thinking about it makes me suicidally depressed. It's all right buddy. We'll all be dead shortly before things get really bad, but if you're thinking about offing yourself you should consider taking action to aid future carbon reduction on the way out. While suicide zeroes you out, having an effect on consumption means you're having a net decrease. If you're seriously considering suicide, turn your computer off, go outside, and call a friend, family member, or a doctor, and tell them you need help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, committing suicide is a good way to permanently reduce your carbon footprint to zero! Hey! Sound advice!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
It was a joke for fucks sake
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:It was a joke for fucks sake It's hard to tell, considering how depressing the thread usually is. My mistake. Carry on! (and also srsly, do not kill yourself)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:at least it's not 2012, I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
I feel like there are probably a lot of climate scientists who are really happy that this year seems to be a strong El Nino, just from the angle of finally destroying the "pause" argument. If the 1998 blip finally gets blown out of the water, then it will no longer matter what year is chosen as the starting point for denialist charts and graphs. I'm sure they'll retreat to a new argument.... "actually, a hotter climate is good" seems to be a good replacement for "look at this graph, there's a hiatus and global warming ended in 1998" Or switch to charts like this 
lapse fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Looks like they've finally destroyed the old 'CO2 comes after glaciers melt' line:quote:Here we use recent improvements in cosmogenic-nuclide production-rate calibrations to recalculate 1,116 cosmogenic (1,060 10Be, 56 3He) ages on 195 alpine moraines and 30 glaciated bedrock surfaces spanning Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) to modern ice extents to establish the timing of glacier fluctuations over the past 30,000 years (Supplementary Note 1). We find that there was regional variability in the timing of glacier fluctuations superimposed on a global pattern of broadly synchronous retreat that was largely coincident with the rise in CO2. Together with transient model simulations, our results suggest that greenhouse gases were the major driver of global-scale glacier retreat, while other factors modulated glacier responses regionally. AFP talked with the authors a bit if you're interested. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
We're coming up on the yearly minimum Arctic/maximum Antarctic sea ice extent point. It looks like the Arctic won't hit 0 this year, or even surpass the 2012 minimum Arctic extent:  This is somewhat better than it looked earlier in the year (as you can see on the graph), where it started lower than everything else. However, the trend is a little... unusual. Typically, it's already started to pull back from its annual plunge by this point in the year to level out. Instead, based on the current trajectory, it looks like 2015 will surpass 2007 to claim second place to 2012 in smallest minimum Arctic sea ice extent - even though the extent is still larger than 2007's just before the minimum annual sea ice extent. This is a little concerning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Arctic sea ice has recovered, take that KKKlimateailures 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 12:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
This actually came out a month ago but I only just came across it: Spotty sunspot record gets a makeover quote:Astronomers have fixed an embarrassing discrepancy involving the longest observational record in science: data on sunspot activity that stretch back four centuries. The discovery has ramifications for understanding how the Sun has affected, and could still affect, life on Earth. ...though of course I doubt there will be many people who previously thought climate change was caused by solar activity that will be persuaded otherwise by this research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
TACD posted:This actually came out a month ago but I only just came across it: Just more proof that scientists are manipulating data to fit their extreme viewpoints. *drives off, rolls coal all over Bill Nye*
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:We're coming up on the yearly minimum Arctic/maximum Antarctic sea ice extent point. Au contraire:  http://arctic-roos.org/observations/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic (They seem to be glitching out at the moment)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
http://www.ktoo.org/2015/09/09/coast-guard-cutter-healy-reaches-north-pole/ A US Ice-Breaker has reached the North Pole unassisted for the first time Necc0 fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:http://www.ktoo.org/2015/09/09/coast-guard-cutter-healy-reaches-north-pole/ I can already hear the calls to float an exploratory rig out there, just to say we drilled the geographic pole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago. And proceded to do absolutely everything possible to cover it up to protect its profits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Why don't we nationalize all oil companies and use the profits to mitigate climate change?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
how would shareholders be compensated in such an event? will the taxpayer foot the bill for acquiring my XOM shares?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:how would shareholders be compensated in such an event? will the taxpayer foot the bill for acquiring my XOM shares? Absolutely. It would be quite a band-aid to rip off but ultimately profitable, one would hope, given that nationalization is perpetual and that the value of proven reserves absolutely outweighs current market capitalization. That way we could keep drilling to pay for mitigation and then wind down oil extraction to minimal levels necessary for plastics, etc. when nuclear and other renewables can take over. Plus, when oil is barely needed in the future, why not raise the price 10x as a sort of plastic "tax"? I'm just one of those folks that think that resource extraction should never be able to be operated at anything other than utility company profit levels. Radbot fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
So VW just admitted that their "defeat device" - the device that detects when a car is going through an emission test and temporarily lowers emissions to pass the test - has been installed on 11 million vehicles worldwide. http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/09/volkswagen-admits-11-million-diesel-cars-have-sneaky-software-installed/ quote:On Tuesday, Volkswagen revealed that 11 million diesel cars worldwide have been equipped with software allegedly used to cheat emissions tests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
I would not be surprised at all to see more auto manufacturers outed as doing similar things in the coming months. Volkswagen is in some deep poo poo now, this story has legs and will continue to be relevant in a world that's increasingly waking up to the terrible danger of climate change. Also, emissions testing is going to be scrutinized a poo poo lot more from now on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
How are u posted:I would not be surprised at all to see more auto manufacturers outed as doing similar things in the coming months. Volkswagen is in some deep poo poo now, this story has legs and will continue to be relevant in a world that's increasingly waking up to the terrible danger of climate change. Also, emissions testing is going to be scrutinized a poo poo lot more from now on. Hopefully a lot of bullshit is called regarding classifying things as "light trucks" in order to sidestep regulation, as was done in the PT Cruiser (and I'm sure in more cases that I'm not aware of.) I'm sick of the loopholes and there is really no excuse for this kind of behavior other than executives trying to line their pockets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
How are u posted:I would not be surprised at all to see more auto manufacturers outed as doing similar things in the coming months. Volkswagen is in some deep poo poo now, this story has legs and will continue to be relevant in a world that's increasingly waking up to the terrible danger of climate change. Also, emissions testing is going to be scrutinized a poo poo lot more from now on. Yeah, the EPA, CARB, and a couple other groups have announced they are going to test vehicles from all manufacturers for cheats like this now. A group in Germany announced that the BMW X3 diesel is probably cheating as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Is there more information on how these work specifically? How is it possible to know that an emissions test is being done? Is there an emissions testing program on the ECU that is ran by the testers or something extremely easy to bypass?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Is there more information on how these work specifically? How is it possible to know that an emissions test is being done? Is there an emissions testing program on the ECU that is ran by the testers or something extremely easy to bypass? Emissions tests are done by elevating the car and running the front wheels only. The VW system detected when the drivetrain was only running the front wheels, and did…something…to reduce engine emissions drastically. Like maybe the diesel part was temporarily disconnected, I dunno. But anyway that's how the car was able to detect that it was being tested. The unbelievable balls this must have taken. I wonder how high up the chain of command that decision went -- as a CEO, shouldn't you be paranoid enough to imagine that someday, somebody's going to catch you out on such a simple trick?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
mdemone posted:The unbelievable balls this must have taken. I wonder how high up the chain of command that decision went -- as a CEO, shouldn't you be paranoid enough to imagine that someday, somebody's going to catch you out on such a simple trick? No, by then you and the rest of your higher ups have spent years making fairly large salaries and you aren't dependent upon your continuing employment, so you aren't going to worry all that much. A quick check says he's likely to get a ~60M payout at the end. The people who will get hurt are shareholders (and car owners), as I doubt that the law will pierce the veil and actually extract financial or criminal penalties against the individuals who should be ultimately responsible (since they had the authority and reaped part of the rewards). Focusing on the CEO is also a mistake - there's a large chain of highly paid executives that are a part of this, most certainly. After the various financial scandals in the early 2000's (Enron, Tyco, MCI Worldcom) we passed Sarbanes-Oxley precisely for this reason - to put individual heat on the people who are ultimately responsible, making them sign on the reports. This type of corporate behavior is more the norm than the exception - see the stories surrounding Koch Industries, the various monopolistic actions or cartel-like control of certain industries, every coal/mining company in the south, etc. Playing by the rules and playing fairly only works when there's a great chance that the people who don't will get caught, and punished enough to mean they'll suffer compared to the ones who play fair. The US at least has a political party that talks about Free Markets but is really more Laissez-Faire economics in practice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 16:33
|
|
