|
Ottawa plans phase-out of coal:The Globe and Mail posted:The Liberal government has announced its plan to virtually eliminate the use of traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030, but will offer some flexibility to the provinces. Natural gas is replacing coal for economic reasons but opportunistic politicians see a chance to appear environmentally progressive without really doing anything. Apparently this doesn't work in the US due to a bunch of angry Virginian coal miners. Overall it's a marginally good move.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Ottawa plans phase-out of coal: dunno, depends on how well methane leaks are being discovered and controlled. it came out recently that the methane leaks from natural gas mining and use in the US was way higher than originally estimated, and methane is a really nasty greenhouse gas
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Ottawa plans phase-out of coal: West Virginian; the Virginian ones make a lot of noise but it's one of the only (the only?) coal states not to go for Trump. As you say, though, natural gas is replacing coal and there isn't much even the lumbering juggernaut of us state power can do about it. At best it will prolong the lingering death of the coal industry, keeping some jobs from disappearing for a while. It won't create new ones. From what I've seen it's likely the net effect on the climate will be negative but not enough to negate the overall global shift away from coal. On the other hand, we had the opportunity to be a leader in the field, to accelerate the end of coal burning, and well... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:How credible is the doomsaying about [Phytoplankton Collapse] → [Literal Human Extinction] by 2100? Reportedly, 5.5C to 8C should be sufficient to produce sufficient ocean acidification and warming to ruin the marine ecosystem component responsible for 2/3 of our oxygen, and new research suggests that GHGs may grow more impactful as the atmosphere warms meaning we could be on track for a mass extinction event around 2100. Hillary Clinton was dedicated to do as little as possible as well. She promoted natural gas as a transition to cleaner energy, which is bullshit. Natural gas is just what is cheapest, and luckily is less terrible than coal. Well, at least she would keep Obama's clean energy tax cuts and such. Ok, so global warming is happening and will get really loving bad. Assuming enough oxygen continues to be produced by the ocean, is there any place in the world that doesn't get completely hosed by climate change? Or is it too hard to predict that sort of thing with any accuracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Or is it too hard to predict that sort of thing with any accuracy? Right now we're dealing with known unknowns, once the unknown unknowns start showing up there's really not much we can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dunno, depends on how well methane leaks are being discovered and controlled. it came out recently that the methane leaks from natural gas mining and use in the US was way higher than originally estimated, and methane is a really nasty greenhouse gas This. The amount of methane leaking in the US would probably wipe out any advantage decommissioning coal will give.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
One aspect of rising temperatures is that it leads to canceled flights. Airlines consider anything above 40 C / 104 F to be cause for concern. Historically this was only a problem at the absolute hottest locations such as Phoenix but Las Vegas McCarran is now also losing some service because it’s just too hot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
In case you were having a pretty good day I recommend checking out this thread : https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,428.100.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
I've tried to make a case for climate change, even called it climate disruption, but every time I do some people always fall back to the one of the OP arguments. The most prevalent one being "The earth's temperature works in cycles! We can't stop it we can only adapt!" which is a self-defeating argument which I always respond "Well, why is switching to green energy not a form of adapting then?" (green in this case being the usual suspects and better nuclear plants than the garbage we use in the US) they almost always fall back on the fatalist argument of "it doesn't matter" or go on how human effects on the temperature are insignificant. I know some people can be a lost cause but I still bring it up every now and then among the more conservative people in my gaming group in hopes of trying to convince them this poo poo is actually happening. Anyone have some specific tips not mentioned in those resources linked in the OP?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
It seems the best option is to get rich and start playing the real game, rather than trying to corral lemmings with no room in their heads for reality. Unfortunately, that is something of a non-option for most people, including me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Whoops, phone double posting.
BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Ok, so global warming is happening and will get really loving bad. Assuming enough oxygen continues to be produced by the ocean, is there any place in the world that doesn't get completely hosed by climate change? Or is it too hard to predict that sort of thing with any accuracy? I reckon Scandinavia will be fine, particularly Norway. Got heaps of dams and hydro power and precip is projected to increase so they have water security. They have the resources to become completely food independent, if they arent already. The biggest threat i reckon will be climate refugees, and they literally have a moat. New Zealand comes to mind too, also for water and refugee reasons. Australia to a lesser degree but Australia will have very serious water stresses and heat waves to manage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:It seems the best option is to get rich and start playing the real game, rather than trying to corral lemmings with no room in their heads for reality. Land is cheap in MN
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:I've tried to make a case for climate change, even called it climate disruption, but every time I do some people always fall back to the one of the OP arguments. The most prevalent one being "The earth's temperature works in cycles! We can't stop it we can only adapt!" which is a self-defeating argument which I always respond "Well, why is switching to green energy not a form of adapting then?" (green in this case being the usual suspects and better nuclear plants than the garbage we use in the US) they almost always fall back on the fatalist argument of "it doesn't matter" or go on how human effects on the temperature are insignificant. I know some people can be a lost cause but I still bring it up every now and then among the more conservative people in my gaming group in hopes of trying to convince them this poo poo is actually happening. These people are just too stupid to listen to you. They prefer the fantasy fed to them by the right; they'll double down on the fantasy until they die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Things are looking up, a little. I'll caveat that with some potential trends: Cyan is best-case, if the current gain continues until the end of the year - rather unlikely. Green is enhanced growth, realistically the upper bounds of what will probably happen. Yellow range contains the trends from every other year from this point until year end - I think it will fall within this range. Red lower bound would continue on how it has been, realistically the lower bounds of what will probably happen. Fuchsia lower bound would be worst-case - probably won't happen. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:Anyone have some specific tips not mentioned in those resources linked in the OP? If someone makes a baseless claim ask for hard data and refuse to move on until they give it. Make the conversation about their claims - don't tell them they are wrong, ask them why they are right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Bates posted:Make the conversation about their claims - don't tell them they are wrong, ask them why they are right. I have found this approach to be occasionally effective (as in, by far the most effective approach, relatively). Gently asking questions why it is that they think what they think. Where they get their information from. Why do they get their information from there. Are those sources trustworthy, agenda, et cetera. As soon as you actually challenge their views, become even remotely aggressive, their defences to logic and reason go up and its all over. It doesn't often work but it does on occasion work. It also requires a lot of effort and restraint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:I've tried to make a case for climate change, even called it climate disruption, but every time I do some people always fall back to the one of the OP arguments. The most prevalent one being "The earth's temperature works in cycles! We can't stop it we can only adapt!" which is a self-defeating argument which I always respond "Well, why is switching to green energy not a form of adapting then?" (green in this case being the usual suspects and better nuclear plants than the garbage we use in the US) they almost always fall back on the fatalist argument of "it doesn't matter" or go on how human effects on the temperature are insignificant. I know some people can be a lost cause but I still bring it up every now and then among the more conservative people in my gaming group in hopes of trying to convince them this poo poo is actually happening. Chances are you're not going to change their mind. Maybe it's because their worldview and therefore identity demands climate change not be real, maybe they just hear it's not real so much from their circle of acquaintances and insular groups that it's easy to dismiss one person, or maybe they just don't care enough to think about it. Chances are, they haven't thought about it, just read a conservative article with [insert talking point], and will just repeat it until the end of time. It also matters where you're doing this. If you're doing it online, they're just going to google a bunch of poo poo and pretend like they know what they're talking about, but really they're just searching for something that will confirm what they already think they know. If you're doing it in person, it's possible to continue to hit them with questions, facts, which might actually lead to a change in schema. First, read the Debunking Handbook. If you are going to change their mind, you need to avoid the backfire effect. Remember, that's something along the lines of:
This is probably going to be most effective online, where you can strictly control the structure of how you debate. In person, you might use this: Bates posted:If someone makes a baseless claim ask for hard data and refuse to move on until they give it. Make the conversation about their claims - don't tell them they are wrong, ask them why they are right. For arguing specifically about "The earth's temperature has changed before" and "well humans can't do anything to the climate anyways" (two different claims, but we can tackle them together), what they're probably referring to with "cycles" is Milankovitch Cycles. Here's how I might approach it: 1. (State claim) Earth is warming because of humans and the carbon dioxide and methane we've emitted. 2. (Myth) The cylces you're probably talking about are Milankovitch cycles, and happen because of changes in how the Earth orbits around the sun. These changes can take thousands of years. Scientists know about these cycles. 3. (Debunk myth) These cycles aren't the cause of climate change. Scientists have looked at all the things that increase temperature and decrease temperature. If it were just natural, global temperature would be falling. Instead, it's rising. 4. (Replace myth) We know it's rising because of human carbon emissions. We can actually look at different isotopes of carbon to figure out where the carbon came from, and we find that most of the carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere came from humans burning fossil fuels. This makes sense, because we had the industrial revolution and are continuing to burn fossil fuels. We know how much, because businesses and governments keep track of how much they use. This lines up with how much carbon we've put in the atmosphere. We know that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light, or heat because we can measure in labs the properties of carbon-dioxide are. 5. (Restate claim) So the Earth is warming because of humans and the fossil fuels we've used. Climate change is definitely human caused. 6. (This then undermines their next argument) If humans can cause the Earth to warm, we can stop it warming too. 7. (Since your friends are likely conservative, you want to play towards their worldview) How could we do that? Well, we could stop having the government hand out money to the fossil fuel industries so that markets can again be competitive. This will allow other energy industries to thrive which will cause our economy to grow and create good jobs. That will also not make us as dependent on foreign oil, which will keep our country strong and safe. Finally, not burning coal and other fossil fuels will help with a lot of health problems like asthma, lung cancer, so our children and families are healthier. If you're in a conversation, it's not going to be that structured. But you can go through that all, and I think the key is to just keep hammering one point. Don't fall for the gish-gallop, where you let them just keep moving the conversation topic constantly or bringing up related things. Hammer in on the single point. They might concede. Likely, they'll rage-quit, but if it's online or in front of an audience, you might change a bystander's mind, which is always worth it. Edit: Now with pictures! Here's the "natural forcing" vs "human influence" thing I'm talking about. 
Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
This is my favourite response to that one - 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Given that we're trending past RCP8.5+ at this point with stuff like the arctic sea ice, in many ways a Trump administration is better than a do-nothing HRC administration from an accelerationist standpoint. I mean pre-Trump, people ITT were jerking off about how the Democrats would save us with garbage treaties like the Paris Accord. The emperor has no clothes and I can't wait for places like Florida to get sunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I reckon Scandinavia will be fine, particularly Norway. Got heaps of dams and hydro power and precip is projected to increase so they have water security. They have the resources to become completely food independent, if they arent already. Not that it matters, but you're wrong on a couple of things here. Firstly, Norway can't really expand their hydroelectric capacity much at this point. There's been huge developments on this since the sixties, and even Norway is running out of rivers and lakes to dam. Now, this shouldn't be a problem normally, but strong neoliberalist and private interest forces are working towards piping that electrical capacity towards Europe, particularly Germany, which as we all know decided to de-nuclearize. The idea being that private companies (that for some reason are being allowed to profit from all this renewable stuff even if it is or ought to be state-owned) can sell power high to mainland Europe during high consumption periods, and buy it back and refill magazines with pumps for cheap during low consumption periods. A good idea from a financial standpoint, terrible for the people of Norway who are going to be paying significantly more for power going forwards. Which leads to seeking alternatives, like biofuel and fossil fuel to heat homes during the (still) very cold norwegian winter. And if magazines are low, costs rise more, and Norway will have to utilize their natural gas power plants. Which means more emissions. The capitalists have done it again, folks. Norway is also not food independent, but can at best support 50% of its population with its current production. This is not likely to increase any time soon, because of later times de-prioritizing farming and food production as a low-status low-income profession, and having to compete with international trade. Cheaply available food is killing food production in Norway, and at this point some farmers are growing christmas trees for sale because it's just more profitable than growing grain or raising cattle. Norway has had massive starvation as recently as last century, and will have that again, particularly if the thermohaline circulation is disrupted with worsening growing conditions and potentially massive loss of fish in the norwegian sea. Also, Norway does not have a moat but a mainland Europe highway/railway connection through Sweden/Denmark that can't (by treaty) be closed or even subjected to border controls (even if those are being re-implemented in violation of the Schengen-treaty at the moment, nobody knows where that's going). Sweden might do fine though. They have nuclear power, lots of room for proper agriculture and a milder climate less dependent on the thermohaline circulation. Also, swedish food is great! E: Point being, nowhere is particularly safe or great. The system of the earth is gigantic and utterly complex, and we don't know what's going to happen. Predicting the future is very difficult at the best of times, but it's even harder when you don't have all the information beforehand. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:This is my favourite response to that one - On the map there you can see 5 points of light in Australia - those are Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Can someone please explain to me the apparently undiscovered civilization in the middle of the Western Australian desert?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
Bushfires
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Norway For all intents and purposes, Norway is 100% hydro, this isn't going to change. And their hydro power is projected to increase, not because of more dams, but because of more rain there. I don't know how they currently heat their homes in Norway but it would be trivial for them to do it with electricity. Whatever agreements they have with the rest of Europe, I seriously doubt they would choose to go without electricity while exporting to Europe. If they wanted to, they could easily become food independent. Greenhouses and such. It will just cost some money. And when the world is going to poo poo, being food independent will be a very important thing to be. And again, when the world is going to poo poo it wouldn't be difficult to just close that connection to Denmark. And when 5 million+ people are trying to migrate into Norway, they will impose controls. drat any agreement. Norway has water, food, electricity and migrant security. Or at the very least very easy to achieve these. Much like Sweden. The only way I see things going badly for these countries is if their neighbors become war like. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
VectorSigma posted:Bushfires What vegetation is there even to burn in that part of Western Australia?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:We know how much, because businesses and governments keep track of how much they use. This lines up with how much carbon we've put in the atmosphere. Yeah this is nice and all but this is pretty much bullshit. Governments and industries generally under-report emissions and has been demonstrated time and time again, and is one huge reason why many models run in the 90s and 00s under estimated warming. In the US the extractors generally under report. Other countries under report on a national scale (Which is why your 'foreign oil/keeping country safe' argument is strange given the global context of the problem)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:For all intents and purposes, Norway is 100% hydro, this isn't going to change. And their hydro power is projected to increase, not because of more dams, but because of more rain there. I don't know how they currently heat their homes in Norway but it would be trivial for them to do it with electricity. Whatever agreements they have with the rest of Europe, I seriously doubt they would choose to go without electricity while exporting to Europe. 95,6% (highest year on record from what I can find) with the rest made up of solar and wind. I wouldn't really count on altered weather patterns (as much as you can rely on projected weather patterns decades in advance in specific geographic locations) to create more hydroelectric power, because Norway already gets its fair share of rain (particularly the western part) and is producing at near capacity. They need to expand capacity if they are going to produce a higher yearly amount. Trouble with that is, Norway is currently increasing its electricity consumption by between 2,5 and 3% yearly. And since 2000, big hydroelectric developments have been put on freeze due to conservation efforts (contrary to common belief, dams take up a lot of space and fucks up the local environment quite effectively). It's a big question whether that's likely to change. There's no expanding east anyway, because that part actually gets very litte rain; the mountains stop a lot of moisture. As for food independence, there's no political will for that outside the ostensible farmer's party, and most people living in Norway couldn't give less of a poo poo about food security. Food has been readily available for two generations with little in the way of disruption of supply (disregarding the infamous butter crisis of 2011 that CNN did a piece on  ) and this issue isn't even on the radar for most people. Any sudden change, and Norway is very vulnerable. Greenhouses take time, and also take up precious electricity and space, and construction in Norway is as hyper-regulated as in the rest of Scandinavia: not a quick affair.Norway's border with Sweden is impossible to police. It's over a thousand miles long, and there's another 600 miles in addition to that bordering Finland and Russia. The only real border control is the Russian border, the rest is a swiss cheese. The country will be utterly unable to stop illegal immigration if that gets bad enough. I guess geographical remoteness might help, but I'll guess we'll find out regardless. But yeah, I'd put my money on Sweden being better than Norway, and Norway being not much better than mainland Europe. Which, you know, might be fine?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Norway's issues What you are labeling as issues are just very easily manageable or just non issues. Especially compared to countries that might ahve to deal with 10s of millions or hundreds of millions of migrants. Electricity: Norway has pretty much every possible option to use. With so much hydro, it could build a lot of wind. It could be reactors. And I would have to check but going on memory but our models have very high agreement in precip increasing in Norway, so yeah, we have high confidence that hydro power will increase. They could even build oil. Worst and I mean worst case scenario for Norway in this regard is, some very minor electrical conservation schemes. Its a complete non issue. Food: People understand how important food is. That Norway is secure in importing now is fine. But the world will take time to turn to poo poo. And when that starts, people will understand that they need to become food independent. And then they will spend whatever money they need to in order to do that. Worst case scenario is, it costs some money and maaaaaaaaaaaaybe some food rationing. Borders: Sweden is protected by the moat too, they aren't going to let in millions of migrants just as Norway wouldn't. So there won't be millions of migrants going into Norway from Sweden, because they won't be able to get into Sweden. If you think its at all practical go get into Norway via Finland or Russia, good luck to you, you deserve to get in. You are well into the arctic circle at those latitudes. And the infrastructure in that part of the world, isn't great. This isn't a route for mass migration. quote:But yeah, I'd put my money on Sweden being better than Norway, and Norway being not much better than mainland Europe. Which, you know, might be fine? The first world parts, sure. Eastern Europe and the PIGS, eh, don't have much confidence. But if migration figures are what they could be, its all completely screwed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Yeah this is nice and all but this is pretty much bullshit. Governments and industries generally under-report emissions and has been demonstrated time and time again, and is one huge reason why many models run in the 90s and 00s under estimated warming. In the US the extractors generally under report. Other countries under report on a national scale (Which is why your 'foreign oil/keeping country safe' argument is strange given the global context of the problem) I was proposing an argument that would be both simple and appeal to conservatives who might otherwise deny climate change altogether. I'm well aware it's oversimplified and problematic. When you're trying to change the mind of someone who denies the problem even exists, you can't really go into all the nuance. First, you have to get them to even admit there's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:On the map there you can see 5 points of light in Australia - those are Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Can someone please explain to me the apparently undiscovered civilization in the middle of the Western Australian desert? Iirc, they rather equalized bright/dim sources (hence Alaska's North Slope and Australia's miscellany).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:On the map there you can see 5 points of light in Australia - those are Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Can someone please explain to me the apparently undiscovered civilization in the middle of the Western Australian desert? Something odd is certainly going on, here's a different image from the NASA website, with lights in more appropriate places.  http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55167/earth_lights_lrg.jpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
It's a mapping of light sources rather than an actual photo:quote:Unlike a camera that captures a picture in one exposure, the day-night band produces an image by repeatedly scanning a scene and resolving it as millions of individual pixels. Then, the day-night band reviews the amount of light in each pixel. If it is very bright, a low-gain mode prevents the pixel from oversaturating. If the pixel is very dark, the signal is amplified.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Oh hey, an overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep a climate deal that we voted to get rid of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Something odd is certainly going on, here's a different image from the NASA website, with lights in more appropriate places. Im the giant strip of light signalling the Canada/US border. How does one go about discussing climate change in parts of the world where the effects are less noticeable? Here in Canada I find it can be quite difficult to have conversations with people about it because rising sea levels arent a great threat to most of the population (sorry Vancouver) while warmer temperatures are constantly spun as a good thing because "it creates more farmland up north!  ". Like, I know we are going to be hurt by climate change but its hard to make any point when there appears to be so little fact about our little corner of the globe in particular. Desertification of the prairies seems to be the only one that has any merit but see the above line of thinking on why nobody cares. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Tell them global warming will cook the United States and send 50,000,000 Republicans screaming across the border. It will impel northward population migrations around the world, and I see no reason to exempt Canada. Edit: There's already talk of California building a pipeline to take Washington's water. When the entire United states needs water, who do you think we'll take it from? Accretionist fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
It's been raining all day here so I'm pretty sure we're not running out of water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
 I'd better upgrade my air conditioner before next summer, huh. I'm gonna have to face the fact that every summer after this past summer will be record-breaking heat, unless it's record-breaking storms instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:
Insert "Why Not Both?" GIF here
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Oh hey, an overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep a climate deal that we voted to get rid of. Surprise, Trump was full of poo poo on the campaign trail. Donald Trump Says He Has ‘Open Mind’ on Climate Change Accord quote:President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Tuesday that he would “keep an open mind” about whether to pull the United States out of a landmark multinational agreement on climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
its no big deal posted:Insert "Why Not Both?" GIF here "It's a tornado that shoots lightning! Apparently that's what happens if there's an F5 tornado on a 120 degree day!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:01
|
|