|
The jet stream crossed the equator (maybe? or maybe it's quackery? sure looks bad)
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
That looks pretty made up from what I can tell, googling it gets nothing legitimate looking or informative at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
surprising absolutely no-one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 07:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Washington Post has an article debunking it unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Wakko posted:Washington Post has an article debunking it unfortunately. haha unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Wakko posted:unfortunately. Yes terribly unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
You climate wackos just want to say "told ya so".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
yes that was totally the intent, not a polite way of saying you fell for some artic-news-esque horseshit, you fuckin goons
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Hey in good news the hole in the ozone layer is shrinking! Although carbon emissions and global warming are much more challenging problems to face, at least we know the world is at least theoretically capable of coming together and effecting solutions, even if we may not see ultimate success for another 50+ years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
it goes inside of your rear end
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
DoctoRadox posted:it goes inside of your rear end quoted the wrong thing but going with this
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
DoctoRadox posted:it goes inside of your rear end not unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
http://www.anl.gov/articles/modeling-predicts-which-counties-could-store-more-carbon-soil-growing-bioenergy-cropsquote:In an effort to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by reducing the use of petroleum fuels, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Renewable Fuel Standard calls for increased production of advanced biofuels. Fortunately, most bioenergy crops can grow on a range of crop and marginal lands across the country, taking advantage of land that may not be viable for traditional crops. Because Earth's soil stores about three times as much carbon as the atmosphere, these deep-rooted plants that return season after season might also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions before they are even harvested for fuel by increasing the amount of carbon stored in the soil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Reduce, reuse, recycle. It always irritates me how many people don't give a poo poo about the first two-thirds of this and just think if they're recycling a bunch of poo poo instead of throwing it away they're saving the planet. It's much more accurate to say recycling is just the second-worst thing you can do. Well, third if you count setting your garbage on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
davebo posted:It always irritates me how many people don't give a poo poo about the first two-thirds of this and just think if they're recycling a bunch of poo poo instead of throwing it away they're saving the planet. It's much more accurate to say recycling is just the second-worst thing you can do. Well, third if you count setting your garbage on fire. Speaking of reduce, there is some good news on that front: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/the-amount-of-energy-needed-to-run-the-worlds-economy-is-decreasing-on-average/  We are reducing the energy required for the same amount of economic activity, something that is critical to creating the space to adapt to climate change while having economic resources available for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Showing the change in energy productivity is misleading. It's better to look at energy intensity (of which energy productivity is the inverse). So energy intensity decreased by 32% over 25 years. That's about a 1% decrease per year. At the rate energy intensity will be half of 1990 levels by 2060, and half of today's levels by 2085. Looks a bit like "too little too late" to me. And after a certain point, improving energy efficiency gets really difficult if not impossible so a long term 1% decrease per year may be too optimistic. parcs fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
parcs posted:Showing the change in energy productivity is misleading. It's better to look at energy intensity (of which energy productivity is the inverse). I think you're underestimating how inefficient things are. The among of energy we could save by reducing sharp angles in piping alone is massive, for example. HVAC has huge efficiency gain potential using existing/historic technologies. And that's not even getting into the general resource decoupling that service/digital economies create. But also even a 10-25% shaving of demand is huge in terms of turning things around. Costs aren't linear, so marginal changes in efficiency can have non-marginal changes in total cost. Better efficiency is a big part of how we're going to be able to offer meaningful improvements to the world's population while engaging in climate mitigation and adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
parcs posted:Showing the change in energy productivity is misleading. It's better to look at energy intensity (of which energy productivity is the inverse). What is the target for energy intensity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
The problem with efficiency is that there is a tendency that as efficiency goes up, use goes up and the overall picture remains the same. A company, for example, may be interested in making a process more efficient so the output becomes cheaper and thus more competitive in the market. But as the products price goes down more people may (probably will) want it so they make more of it, leaving the overall carbon output of the process to be the same because the extra use compensates the gains in efficiency. They also see this a lot with cars- when people buy more efficient cars they tend to drive it more than they would with a less efficient one. Maybe they take an extra roadtrip, drive for fun a bit more, or are less concerned with optimizing their errands and such. Regardless, people tend to target a set fuel cost per month rather than a carbon target, so again you will see that efficiency doesn't tell the whole story. On the larger scale this same sort of thing happens with countries, in that as they get richer the people tend to waste more energy, be it simply driving when public transportation or biking is an acceptable alternative. I've always thought that the real challenges we face is the overwhelming focus on being green, or making something slightly more efficient, when such gains are an eyedrop in an ocean compared to the developing world modernizing. Kinda like-- Great, we have 100 mpg cars, oh wait now 3 billion more people want to be driving, poo poo. Trabisnikof posted:
The numbers don't work out, not even close. We could double the efficiency of the US and it wouldn't even be close to the effect of bringing 5 billion more people to that level of energy usage. And of course doubling isn't even close to what is realistically possible in the time frame climate scientists are talking about. tsa fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jul 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/796858/duterte-says-no-to-climate-pact-compliancequote:PRESIDENT Duterte on Monday said his administration will not honor the historic Paris agreement on climate change which the Philippines adopted along with about 200 countries in December 2015.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Yeah, any aggregate gain in efficiency will be more than offset by a subsequent increase in consumption, especially by developing countries. Even a steep carbon tax on the entire developed world won't really work due to carbon leakage. There's just no way in hell that developing countries will voluntarily stop growing and consuming more energy. The economy is like a big engine that inevitably finds ways to consume as much energy as possible. The only way to stop ever increasing resource consumption, in this economic framework of ours, is to run out of resources. In my pessimistic opinion of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/796858/duterte-says-no-to-climate-pact-compliance No offense to the good people of the Philippines, but everything I've heard about this guy makes it sound like he's a preview for Trump in America if he gets elected, is that a fair comparison? Wasn't there something about him telling people to go out and beat up junkies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:No offense to the good people of the Philippines, but everything I've heard about this guy makes it sound like he's a preview for Trump in America if he gets elected, is that a fair comparison? That's pretty much what he is. And yes, he was going on about encouraging private citizens to go hunt down drug dealers and junkies and kill them. Without trial. He's insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:No offense to the good people of the Philippines, but everything I've heard about this guy makes it sound like he's a preview for Trump in America if he gets elected, is that a fair comparison? His political background as a long-time mayor of a major city that rose to political prominence only very recently as an anti-establishment figurehead is somewhat closer to the UK's Boris Johnson, but otherwise, he is very much a preview for Trump, except the lack of racial tensions in the Philippines means the "otherized" group here is druggies and drug-lords rather than Mexicans and Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:No offense to the good people of the Philippines, but everything I've heard about this guy makes it sound like he's a preview for Trump in America if he gets elected, is that a fair comparison? More like Sheriff Arpaio than Trump, IMO. He was telling people to kill junkies and dealers and offering clemency for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:His political background as a long-time mayor of a major city that rose to political prominence only very recently as an anti-establishment figurehead is somewhat closer to the UK's Boris Johnson, but otherwise, he is very much a preview for Trump, except the lack of racial tensions in the Philippines means the "otherized" group here is druggies and drug-lords rather than Mexicans and Muslims. Ho boy, if you think the Philippines doesn't have a problem with Muslims and foreigners. The Boris Johnson comparison is apt though. The news about Duerte disdaining the Paris Accords stings especially when you consider the delegation from the Phillippines openly weeping when talking about the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan (sp?) and their fears of how climate change would further harm the nation on the floor of the UN a few years back. But then again, the Paris Accords aren't worth the paper they're written on, so 
Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jul 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
tsa posted:The problem with efficiency is that there is a tendency that as efficiency goes up, use goes up and the overall picture remains the same. No, not really. This conclusion comes about when you have a very simple system with minimal factors. That is not an accurate picture of most fields, especially those at a national level. computer parts fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
The developing world is going to develop and aspire to the awesome quality of life that we enjoy in the first world. The only real hope we have is for us in the first world to live a lifestyle that the planet could sustain, assuming the whole population lived the same lifestyles as we do and hope the developing world follows that lead. I mean, I know how naive and completely unrealistic this is. But it beats the hypocrisy of effectively telling the developing world, you can't develop and be happy! Only we can do that. *Sad*
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The developing world is going to develop and aspire to the awesome quality of life that we enjoy in the first world. The only real hope we have is for us in the first world to live a lifestyle that the planet could sustain, assuming the whole population lived the same lifestyles as we do and hope the developing world follows that lead. I mean, I know how naive and completely unrealistic this is. But it beats the hypocrisy of effectively telling the developing world, you can't develop and be happy! Only we can do that. On the other hand, it's much easier to yell at other people that they aren't doing enough than it is to fix your own problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:On the other hand, it's much easier to yell at other people that they aren't doing enough than it is to fix your own problems. Oh yeah. And there's also the thing that whatever problems arise, the first world will be able to buy its way out of them, possibly expensive so. The third world on the other hand... *even more sad*
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
We could just nuke the third world. Vote Trump. fake edit - I'm having a lousy day today am not going to be exhibiting normal patience for the rest of this week
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, not really. It works for freeways, right? Like I recall that as freeways are built for better capacity they almost always get completely swallowed up by a rise in the number of cars. I suppose that could be a pent up demand thing. Anyway thank you for listening to your daily 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:It works for freeways, right? Like I recall that as freeways are built for better capacity they almost always get completely swallowed up by a rise in the number of cars. I suppose that could be a pent up demand thing. Not in upstate New York, no. The classic car analogy is gas prices btw, although that's a bad one because there's a hidden element: time. Even if gas is 3 cents a gallon people aren't going to commute 100 times as far as if it was $3/gal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Jevon's Paradox does work for roads in general, though I don't know about upstate New York. If a city has a major traffic problem, people will be disinclined to use a car and more inclined to use a (motor)bike, or to not travel at all. If a city has empty streets, people have no time- or effort-saving incentive to use a bike or public transport. Comparing $0.03 vs $3.00 is more than a bit disingenuous - two orders of magnitude, really? It has been observed that fuel prices influence miles traveled, and discussing $0.03 or $300 per gallon fuel is not a solid basis to refute that. Actually, maybe $300/gallon is a good example, as distance traveled will be reduced by 100x or more at that price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Jevon's Paradox does work for roads in general, though I don't know about upstate New York. Cities with large roads typically don't have empty streets or public transportation, so it's a foolish comparison. You've already admitted that Jevon's Paradox doesn't apply to all situations though, so the only reason to think it would apply in the one being discussed is generic cynicism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Cities with large roads typically don't have empty streets or public transportation, so it's a foolish comparison. You seem to be confused about causality. Aside from entirely new modern cities, cities are not built with "large roads", but adapt to increasing road use by adding lanes and roads to relieve pressure on existing roads. As suggested, this may increase usage rather than maintaining usage and reducing congestion. quote:You've already admitted that Jevon's Paradox doesn't apply to all situations though, so the only reason to think it would apply in the one being discussed is generic cynicism. The only situation where I have "admitted that Jevon's Paradox doesn't apply to all situations" is your preposterous 100x reduction in fuel price. Taking account of known economic feedbacks in order to determine climate-related policy is wise, not cynical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You seem to be confused about causality. Aside from entirely new modern cities, cities are not built with "large roads", but adapt to increasing road use by adding lanes and roads to relieve pressure on existing roads. As suggested, this may increase usage rather than maintaining usage and reducing congestion. Most cities in the US do not have public transportation as a meaningful substitute. quote:The only situation where I have "admitted that Jevon's Paradox doesn't apply to all situations" is your preposterous 100x reduction in fuel price. Taking account of known economic feedbacks in order to determine climate-related policy is wise, not cynical. They're not known, you just said so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most cities in the US do not have public transportation as a meaningful substitute. Ah, I see - so you meant to write "Cities with large roads typically don't have empty streets, or public transportation." In either case, public transport was only one example of alternatives to driving that I listed, so bad local provision of public transport does not eliminate the possibility of using alternate transit or avoiding travel. quote:They're not known, you just said so. Jevon's Paradox, among other feedback mechanisms, is known, and I never said it wasn't??? ? Do you still think that your unrealistic example of $0.03/gallon fuel disproves Jevon's Paradox? I don't think this is a productive course of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
June was the 14th consecutive hottest [month] on record. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Can someone explain this whole heat bubble because of humidity that's going to happen over the Mid West
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:10
|
|