|
BattleMoose posted:Also so is refrigeratorant management. I also don't know what that involves. I think there are going to be severe issues with their methodologies, if they exist anywhere. Remember how chlorofluorocarbons were eating a hole in the Ozone, which would eventually gently caress our poo poo up real good? And how we no longer widely use chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone hole is kinda-sorta stable and not getting any bigger? That's "refrigerant management". Laymans terms? "Go suck a sweaty egg, hot countries, your air conditioning is going to kill us all." 
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Apparently educating girls is free. Also so is refrigeratorant management. I also don't know what that involves. I think there are going to be severe issues with their methodologies, if they exist anywhere. It is saying that it saves more money than it costs over the life of the program, as it says on the website: quote:In our book Drawdown, each solution is measured and modeled to determine its carbon impact through the year 2050, the total and net cost to society, and the total lifetime savings (or cost). Rime posted:That's "refrigerant management". Laymans terms? "Go suck a sweaty egg, hot countries, your air conditioning is going to kill us all." Not even that. We just need to switch to refrigerants that don't have the same incredibly bad global warming potential. Ethanol is a commonly suggested substitute. Also if you want to open another can of worms, consider that it often takes less energy to cool hot climates than it takes to warm cold climates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is saying that it saves more money than it costs over the life of the program, as it says on the website: It's worth pointing out that Paul Hawken is very much in the "market solutions" camp. Not saying that this means you should discount his data or conclusions, but it's something that's worth keeping in mind. The issue that I have here in particular in that the long term cost of a particular strategy isn't always important, since we're often talking about programs that have to be run over the course of decades and that won't meaningfully pay off within a generation. The cost up front tends to be a lot more important in those cases since that's what's going to determine if something is politically viable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
I mean specifically, what does he mean by refrigerant management. The Montreal protocol was refrigerant management. We already did that. So obviously he has something else in mind, what is it. Specifically, how does he want/expect refrigerants to be used differently? Which ones does he want to be switched out for what? And for which countries? And yes, how much it costs up front is incredibly important. He is so short on details its not worthy of serious consideration. And no, I am not going to buy his book. And keep in mind, the Montreal protocol is still in effect and still is applicable and is still working. By any definition, we are doing refrigerant management. Ethanol refrigerant: I haven't and doubt I will check up ethanols boiling temperature but these things really do matter for the performance of an air conditioning unit. Regardless ethanol has significant downsides, flammability being one of them. Being alcoholic the other. People will drink this stuff. ####### All I am trying to say, his claims as they are, are absolutely not supported by his evidence at all. If he cares, he will make his methodology available to all and everyone. Without trying to make money off of selling books. At face value, it also reeks of bullshit, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
You know you can click on each thing to learn more about it, and I presume there are further details in his 256 page book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Regardless ethanol has significant downsides, flammability being one of them. Being alcoholic the other. People will drink this stuff. So? People will also eat Brugmansia flowers and then cut their dicks off with garden shears, but we don't ban them from cultivation. If a small number of people are stupid enough to crack open an air conditioner and drink the contents then they kind of deserve what happens to them. At a certain point society just needs to say gently caress it and put the greater good above protecting dipshits from themselves. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I mean specifically, what does he mean by refrigerant management. The Montreal protocol was refrigerant management. We already did that. So obviously he has something else in mind, what is it. Let me get this straight, you've never heard of the problem of high global warming potential refrigerants before right now but you're drat certain this book you've never read is not supported by evidence "at all." Is that about right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Rime posted:So? People will also eat Brugmansia flowers and then cut their dicks off with garden shears, but we don't ban them from cultivation. If a small number of people are stupid enough to crack open an air conditioner and drink the contents then they kind of deserve what happens to them. They will mostly just get drunk and then develop techniques to get rid of whatever poisons/dye the authorities try to put in them. quote:Torpedo juice is American slang for an alcoholic beverage, first mixed in World War II, made from pineapple juice and the 180-proof grain alcohol fuel used in United States Navy torpedo motors.[1] Various poisonous additives were mixed into the fuel alcohol by Navy authorities to render the alcohol undrinkable, and various methods were employed by the U.S. sailors to separate the alcohol from the poison. Aside from the expected alcohol intoxication and subsequent hangover, the effects of drinking torpedo juice sometimes included mild or severe reactions to the poison, and the drink's reputation developed an early element of risk. In the first part of the Pacific War, U.S. torpedoes were powered by a miniature steam engine burning 180- or higher-proof ethyl alcohol as fuel. The ethyl alcohol was denatured by the addition of 5–10% "pink lady", a blend of dye, methanol and possibly other ingredients. Methanol causes blindness when ingested, and cannot be made non-poisonous. The methanol was said to be (largely) removed by filtering the fuel mix through a compressed loaf of bread. By design air conditioning units have their coils outside, easy access for any would be vagrant. How many times will a home-owner have his air-conditioner leaked before he refuses to buy an ethanol air-conditioner? Nothing about this is a good idea. And remember, CFCS were developed as a safe replacement ammonia. Ammonia being really quiet toxic. I have physically been in an ammonia refrigerant leak, it was not a pleasant experience. The proposal to make sure the refrigerants are disposed of correctly at end of life is a good idea. The major issue is with his calculations and estimates, like, how much it would cost to make sure those refrigerants are disposed of correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Let me get this straight, you've never heard of the problem of high global warming potential refrigerants before right now but you're drat certain this book you've never read is not supported by evidence "at all." Is that about right? I am very familiar with all the problems associated with refrigerants. As well as the history of which refrigerants we used and why and why we currently use the refrigerants we currently use. As well as the Montreal protocol and the problems with individual refrigerants. Not sure where I lost you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am very familiar with all the problems associated with refrigerants. As well as the history of which refrigerants we used and why and why we currently use the refrigerants we currently use. As well as the Montreal protocol and the problems with individual refrigerants. Not sure where I lost you. The fact that you're acting like know Montreal very well but have never heard of the movement to use it to limit high global warming potential refrigerants, since the treaty has a clause to shift refrigerants if future harms are learned. But presumably you knew that. Or maybe you lost me where you claimed to know the author has no source for their claims but you barely seemed to have read the website let alone the book it is based on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that you're acting like know Montreal very well but have never heard of the movement to use it to limit high global warming potential refrigerants, since the treaty has a clause to shift refrigerants if future harms are learned. But presumably you knew that. I am honestly every confused about what you are writing and assuming. I know what Montreal is. I assumed everyone here knows what Montreal is. You are making assumptions about what I know and I don't know what those are and cannot address them. quote:Or maybe you lost me where you claimed to know the author has no source for their claims but you barely seemed to have read the website let alone the book it is based on. The evidence belongs next to the claims, if its hard to find, I don't waste my time to look. Its a huge red flag. I never claimed he had no source. I said he wasn't communicating it or it was in his to pay for book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am honestly every confused about what you are writing and assuming. I know what Montreal is. I assumed everyone here knows what Montreal is. You are making assumptions about what I know and I don't know what those are and cannot address them. If you know how Montreal works and you know about high global warming potential refrigerants what was your initial confusion about the idea of managing our refrigerant use to reduce global warming? And if you're still confused about the concept how can you be so certain you know the topic better than that book/website?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you know how Montreal works and you know about high global warming potential refrigerants what was your initial confusion about the idea of managing our refrigerant use to reduce global warming? Quoting myself: quote:Specifically, how does he want/expect refrigerants to be used differently? Which ones does he want to be switched out for what? And for which countries? And yes, how much it costs up front is incredibly important. He is so short on details its not worthy of serious consideration. And no, I am not going to buy his book. It turns out his ideas are all about disposing of refrigerants at end of life, which is a fine idea. It needs to be costed. Where are his calculations. EDIT: Refrigerants are a huge problem, obviously (like seriously). What isn't at all obvious is how to address this issue, there are a tonne of options. That is where the confusion sits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Where are his calculations. Quoting the website: quote:In our book Drawdown, each solution is measured and modeled to determine its carbon impact through the year 2050, the total and net cost to society, and the total lifetime savings (or cost). The models are in the book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Quoting the website: So his is profiteering off of global warming, hiding his solutions behind a paywall. This is not a guy I respect or want anything to do with. If he cared about this issue, he would make his entire solutions freely and publicly available. He is a profiteer and should be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:So his is profiteering off of global warming, hiding his solutions behind a paywall. This is not a guy I respect or want anything to do with. If he cared about this issue, he would make his entire solutions freely and publicly available. He is a profiteer and should be treated as such. Lol next complain the author used an airplane to go to book signings. Edit: poo poo you're going to rail against climate scientists as profiteers when you learn how much article access costs and that they get paid to do it too! Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Lol next complain the author used an airplane to go to book signings. He is making claims without backing them up. That poo poo just gets dismissed out of hand, every time. No exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:He is making claims without backing them up. That poo poo just gets dismissed out of hand, every time. No exceptions. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Methodology is important. Its not okay to make claims about how to fix the world without the appropriate evidence to support those claims. This isn't a controversial position to take.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Haha I just loving visited the website for you, what do you know, they do list the sources online: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-management http://www.drawdown.org/references#materials Montreal Protocol: UNEP. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: Final Act. United Nations Environment Programme, 1987. ozone layer is beginning to heal: Solomon, Susan, et al. “Emergence of Healing in the Antarctic Ozone Layer.” Science 353, no. 6296 (2016): 269-274. hydroflourocarbons [vs.] carbon dioxide: Myhre, Gunnar, Drew Shindell, François-Marie Bréon, William Collins, Jan Fuglestvedt, Jianping Huang, Dorothy Koch et al. “Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 2016…amendment to the Montreal Protocol: Davenport, Coral. “Nations, Fighting Powerful Refrigerant That Warms Planet, Reach Landmark Deal.” New York Times. October 15, 2016; Johnston, Chris, et al. “Climate Change: Global Deal Reached to Limit Use of Hydrofluorocarbons.” The Guardian. October 15, 2016. John Kerry…“biggest thing we can do”: Davenport, “Landmark Deal.” reduce…warming…one degree Fahrenheit: Johnston et al, “Global Deal.” [growth of] air-conditioning…by 2030: Shah, Nihar, Max Wei, Virginie Letschert, and Amol Phadke. Benefits of Leapfrogging to Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2015. emissions…at end of life: Zhao, L., W. Zeng, and Z. Yuan. “Reduction of Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Room Air-Conditioner Refrigerants: A Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Analysis.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 100 (2015): 262–268. destruction…to reduce emissions: World Bank. Study on Financing the Destruction of Unwanted Ozone-Depleting Substances through the Voluntary Carbon Market. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2010. air-conditioning in…U.S. homes: HUD. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011. in urban Chinese households: Shah et al, Leapfrogging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:So his is profiteering off of global warming, hiding his solutions behind a paywall. This is not a guy I respect or want anything to do with. If he cared about this issue, he would make his entire solutions freely and publicly available. He is a profiteer and should be treated as such. Ha, look at these IDIOTS having to buy food and poo poo. gently caress them!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Haha I just loving visited the website for you, what do you know, they does list the sources online: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-management You really are just not getting it. He made the following claims: 89.74 GIGATONS REDUCED CO2. How was this number calculated. Also: $-902.77 BILLION LIFETIME SAVINGS How was this number calculated. And how is this the most appropriate option if we cannot even cost it? I will repeat. He is making claims about the efficacy of interventions. He is not providing the appropriate evidence so support his claims. At a minimum he needs to provide the calculations as to how he calculated his numbers that he did and the assumptions that went into making those claims. Some ideas as to what the costs will be and then he has to argue that the assumptions he made are reasonable. At a minimum. EDIT: You can't just believe people because they have a website and some references and have a reassuring message. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
White phosphorous is just as effective as napalm but doesn't add to carbon in the atmosphere!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You really are just not getting it. You're not getting it. That's why you have to loving read the book. If it makes it easier you can imagine that the website is a really fancy looking abstract and the book is just a special edition of a journal. At $22 the book is probably cheaper. quote:Project Drawdown is a nonprofit organization and coalition of scholars, scientists, entrepreneurs, and advocates from across the globe that is mapping, measuring, modeling, and communicating about a collective array of substantive solutions to global warming, with the goal of reaching drawdown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're not getting it. That's why you have to loving read the book. We are talking about climate science intervention. The greatest challenge that will face my and future generations. And this dipshit is withholding his solutions for profit making reasons. If he had any kind of moral conscious he would make his solutions freely available. The fact that he is hiding behind a paywall is enough to convince me that he is completely full of bullshit. Make your information freely available, so it can be critiqued and analysed for credibility. So it can be worked on and expanded on by others. We should not be taking our climate mitigation strategy advice from this person. Fortunately there is an organization that is completely dedicated to analysing all of our mitigation strategies. With scientific credibility. With their claims being supported by evidence which is clearly communicated and freely accessible. Shockingly its the IPCC. No surprises here. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Knowledge is a privileged commodity available only to those who can afford it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:Knowledge is a privileged commodity available only to those who can afford it. All publications from the IPPC are freely available. All data from all the GCMs are freely available. Data from earth observing satellites are freely available. All climate data sets that I am aware of (and used) are freely available. Also, only 2% of annual emissions of GHG CO2 equivalent are from fluorinated gasses (IPCC). It makes no sense that addressing fluorinated gasses is the most effective intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're not getting it. That's why you have to loving read the book. Policy Consultants Hate Him! Environmentalist and entrepreneur reveals most comprehensive plan ever to reverse Global Warming! Learn one weird trick to fix Climate Change now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:All publications from the IPPC are freely available. All data from all the GCMs are freely available. Data from earth observing satellites are freely available. All climate data sets that I am aware of (and used) are freely available. I meant the opposite of what I said, it was a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:We are talking about climate science intervention. The greatest challenge that will face my and future generations. And this dipshit is withholding his solutions for profit making reasons. If he had any kind of moral conscious he would make his solutions freely available. The fact that he is hiding behind a paywall is enough to convince me that he is completely full of bullshit. Make your information freely available, so it can be critiqued and analysed for credibility. Do you feel the same way about scientists who get paid to do climate research and then publish that climate research in pay for access journals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
How dare the non-profit Drawdown Foundation charge $22 for a book with 6 staff Researchers 63 Research Fellows associated with it. Look at all these profit motivated mother fuckers http://www.drawdown.org/research-fellows
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How dare the non-profit Drawdown Foundation charge $22 for a book with 6 staff Researchers 63 Research Fellows associated with it. It's caviar and champagne all thew way to environmental Armageddon I tell you 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Herm, on one hand, I have the unsourced posts of BattleMoose and on the other hand I have the well sourced publication of an organization that lists Bill McKibben, Rick Fedrizzi, Dan Kammen, Michael Pollan and Andy Revkin as just a few of their advisors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you feel the same way about scientists who get paid to do climate research and then publish that climate research in pay for access journals? This is a fair point and literally every scientist I know agree that there are very serious issues with the openness of how publications work. This is a problem and does need to be fixed. To be fair though, these publications are not meant for general consumption and the intended audience (scientists) can access these publications "freely" through the fees that their organizations pay for. On this specific topic though, we have a group (the IPCC) whose responsibilities include dissemination what we know about climate science to the general public, freely and in a format that can be understood. We do this because of the importance of climate science and in the importance of the public being able to access the science in readable formats. #### Regardless the point stands. They are making claims without the appropriate supporting evidence, this will never be appropriate behaviour. #### quote:I have the unsourced posts of BattleMoose You are going to have to be more specific. If I have made claims you would like to see evidence for, I will provide it, that is how this works. The person who makes the claims, is obliged to provide evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2017/05/23/drawdown/quote:The reader is told several times that the Drawdown project is based on measurement, mathematics, and rigorous modeling by scientists and researchers, but this is a case that remains to be made. The photo in the section called “Numbers” illustrates the dilemma. It is a visually intriguing collage of 20 tables of figures and their graphical display. However, it is only symbolic. It is too small to allow the reader to examine the content. quote:I suggest two paths that could strengthen the project’s methodological claims. One is to invite a panel of modelers to assess its analytic approach and make recommendations for next steps. Another is to make more modest claims about models and scientific rigor and instead rely more heavily on informed consensus. Tentative results and the associated assumptions could be reviewed by a panel with the aim of ordering priorities and agreeing on what are, in any case, only roughly estimated total impacts. While I for one am shocked. (That was sarcasm, I am not shocked at all)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
Why are you looking at reviews? It's only Read it yourself and form your own opinions!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2017/05/23/drawdown/ thank you 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
They have research inquiry forms where you can request all their models and data.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
It is very strange that they have so many forestry topics high on the list yet every other report have these as negligible items.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's why you have to loving read the book. hmmmmm lol at the optimists starting to charge people to read their "solutions" i guess dumping a bunch of made up numbers everywhere counts as "marketing"? NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 14:06
|
|
