|
quote:The National Weather Service recently described Alaska’s weather so far this month as “exceptionally mild.” That might be an understatement. Someone better tell these folks about corporate profits!
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Saying people need to stay I their own country tends to be less about people saying I don't need to go to Africa and more about saying people from Africa shouldn't come here. More often than not. I've already talked to my college best friend turned roommate of 4 years about getting his family out of the Ivory Coast and up here to Michigan before poo poo gets hyperreal in the whole middle of the world area there but he doesn't buy my hype at all. :/ E; And I mean that is exactly where I went when I did fly, too. It doesn't matter, air tourism is still bad and I feel bad for it, and in a way it does chap my rear end that people act as if, by the very act of flying and acculturating themselves, they are benefiting the world. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I've already talked to my college best friend turned roommate of 4 years about getting his family out of the Ivory Coast and up here to Michigan before poo poo gets hyperreal in the whole middle of the world area there but he doesn't buy my hype at all. :/ The people that aren't paying attention probably aren't worth it tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Lol I just want to ban the internal combustion engine, nbd 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Wow way to strawman the economic collapse argument. On hydrofracturing: quote:But there is little consensus in the scientific community about how this ice cliff instability could behave. That’s because there is a big leap from identifying a potential problem and predicting the real world consequences. Iceberg scrape marks, though important, can’t tell us how soon, how fast, or for how long. Rob DeConto and Dave Pollard have been the first to put their heads above the parapet, but others may come to different conclusions. Ted Scambos mentioned ‘piles of icebergs’ acting as new ice shelves. Could cold freshwater from melted icebergs also slow things down? Could cliffs partially, instead of catastrophically, crumble? Would a model with finer detail predict fewer tall cliffs? Eric describes the collapse rate as conservative compared with Jakobshavn in Greenland, but this compares apples with oranges: the rapid ice losses from that great glacier are mostly due to its unusually fast speed, rather than the rate of retreat of the ice edge. This is a consistent problem you have. You take speculative results, like quick ice-sheet-collapse-driven SLR or "long tail" ECS scenarios, and repeat them like they're fact. You pick and choose the results you want, and use them to paint a picture of the apocalypse. It can be safely disregarded because it's unscientific. This is not the first, but the latest in a long line of studies of hydrofracturing, but none of the others count because they don't give you the results they want - and, indeed, only the high-impact scenarios in the 2017 study count either. There's a name for this: confirmation bias.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 10:25
|
|
that our global economy collapses no later than Jan 1, 2060.
|
Thug Lessons posted:On hydrofracturing: And you make up worst case values that are 40% or more under what literature reports and treat climatological models as gospel without understanding what components different models do or do not include nor how well they can model paleoclimate evidence (like previous interglacials). I worry about how we solve up to the 95th percentile case. You act like that part of the distribution doesn't exist because trying to deal with it would make you scrap most of the notions of liberalism that you cling to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Policy people are scared to look at the edges of the climate response distribution because they can't stomach things like forced sterilization or suspending air traffic. The conclusion of the paper you posted is basically the definition of erring on the side of least drama:quote:Is “the entire scientific community [in] emergency mode”? We are cautious, and trying to learn more. Climate prediction is a strange game. It takes decades to test our predictions, so society must make decisions with the best evidence but always under uncertainty. I understand why a US-based climate scientist would feel particularly pessimistic. But we have to take care not to talk about the apocalypse as if it were inevitable. If you think that's an acceptable stance then I'm sad to see that you think flipping coins with our biosphere is acceptable. Assuming uncertainty isn't that bad is basically the fundamental error of liberalism that got us into this mess in the first place. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:And you make up worst case values that are 40% or more under what literature reports and treat climatological models as gospel without understanding what components different models do or do not include nor how well they can model paleoclimate evidence (like previous interglacials). When you can convince a majority, or even a significant minority, of climate scientists to accept a 95th percentile case as the most probable one, I'll start taking it seriously. But the reality is that so far, mid-range models have predicted global warming with startling accuracy. There was a report recently that the most accurate model predicts more warming than the average, but it also predicts just 0.5C more warming than average under an RCP8.5 scenario - which, of course, is nowhere anywhere near the 95th percentile. I really have no idea about the paleoclimate stuff but I'm kind of skeptical that can be of any use in predicting warming on a decadal scale. Show me what you're talking about there. And you're of course right that I don't understand the underlying components of models, but I don't have to. There are legions of experts who can interpret them for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:On hydrofracturing: quote:Our study contributes to communicating this deep uncertainty in the cumulative contribution of the WAIS by characterizing the effect on plausible changes in global sea-level rise given the additional processes such as oceanic thermal expansion. We provide three projections based on three WAIS-collapse scenarios, following RCP8.5; no collapse (0 cm), a mid-range estimate (79 cm in 2100, based on DeConto and Pollard, and a high case (3.3 m, full WAIS disintegration within a couple decades) Me: Maybe we should conservatively approach risk since uncertainty is so large You: There's a name for this: confirmation bias.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:When you can convince a majority, or even a significant minority, of climate scientists to accept a 95th percentile case as the most probable one What's that really old saying about hope for the best, plan for the worst? Do you really want to flip coins with our planet by planning for a 60th percentile outcome and acting like anything else is fantasy? You're incredibly stupid. I hope you don't make actual policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:What's that really old saying about hope for the best, plan for the worst? Do you really want to flip coins with our planet by planning for a 60th percentile outcome and acting like anything else is fantasy? You're incredibly stupid. I hope you don't make actual policy. Well, since you're quite open that the alternative to "flipping a coin" is a bunch of Hitler poo poo like forced sterilization, absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Well, since you're quite open that the alternative to "flipping a coin" is a bunch of Hitler poo poo like forced sterilization, absolutely. If we'd actually take realistic policy steps now like drastically reducing air travel, increasing EV production by an order of magnitude more, and banning ruminant consumption, it's much less likely we'll be doing Hitler poo poo later. But hey, if we're only gonna hit 2C and 1m SLR by 2100, none of that is necessary!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:If we'd actually take realistic policy steps now like drastically reducing air travel, increasing EV production by an order of magnitude more, and banning ruminant consumption, it's much less likely we'll be doing Hitler poo poo later. But hey, if we're only gonna hit 2C and 1m SLR by 2100, none of that is necessary! Even banning beef would probably require a dictatorship. And I think if you actually did the math, assuming an 95% percentile case (which has an upper-bound ECS of what? Like 8-10?), you would have to do a lot more drastic measures. You'd be creating a catastrophe to avoid a tiny chance of catastrophe in the future, and actually it's a 0% chance of catastrophe because those models are just wrong. It's not just bad policy, but insane and completely impossible. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Well, since you're quite open that the alternative to "flipping a coin" is a bunch of Hitler poo poo like forced sterilization, absolutely. Oh my loving god this guy is insane
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
There's only a 5% chance that humanity goes extinct, therefore we shouldn't do anything serious about climate change. We wouldn't want to hurt *~corporate profits~*
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Oh my loving god this guy is insane He literally suggested that you obnoxious moron. Stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:He literally suggested that you obnoxious moron. Stop posting. I think you're the obnoxious moron 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Even banning beef would probably require a dictatorship. Not really, all you'd need is a broad political consensus to get past the initial hump until the majority of the electorate forgets why they were ever so vested in beef-eating in the first place. The bigger problem for most democracies is that they're too dysfunctional (US, UK, Belgium) to form consensus agreements that contradict popular opinion for any meaningful period of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Only dictators would try to prevent catastrophic climate change  Beef is freedom!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Not really, all you'd need is a broad political consensus to get past the initial hump until the majority of the electorate forgets why they were ever so vested in beef-eating in the first place. The bigger problem for most democracies is that they're too dysfunctional (US, UK, Belgium) to form consensus agreements that contradict popular opinion for any meaningful period of time. I mean, that's not that different: you're saying we wouldn't need a dictatorship, but it would have to be done undemocratically. Well, sure, I guess we could imagine that, but it's never going to happen. It's not a real policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Better things aren't possible!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I mean, that's not that different: you're saying we wouldn't need a dictatorship, but it would have to be done undemocratically. Well, sure, I guess we could imagine that, but it's never going to happen. It's not a real policy. There's nothing undemocratic about representative politicians acting against popular interest in the long-term interests of society. That's the entire point of having a representative rather than direct democratic system in the first place.  EDIT: Populism and referenda are bad words in politics for very good reasons as most lately Brexit proved. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:There's nothing undemocratic about representative politicians acting against popular interest in the long-term interests of society. That's the entire point of having a representative rather than direct democratic system in the first place. What he means is that corporations are people and their money is free speech, and if you go against what corporations want then you're being undemocratic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
white sauce posted:What he means is that corporations are people and their money is free speech, and if you go against what corporations want then you're being undemocratic. I don't think it's that, and he might be being more honest than most in this thread. It reads to me more like "human desires are sacrosanct, growth for the sake of happiness must happen no matter what, and if that conflicts with preventing apocalypse, eh, discount the possibility of apocalypse to avoid feeling the monstrous absurdity of life clawing at me"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I don't think it's that, and he might be being more honest than most in this thread. It reads to me more like "human desires are sacrosanct, growth for the sake of happiness must happen no matter what, and if that conflicts with preventing apocalypse, eh, discount the possibility of apocalypse to avoid feeling the monstrous absurdity of life clawing at me" It's more like human interests and limiting climate change are both important. The problem is that people see this as a binary. Either we fight climate change no matter the cost or we do nothing. Which is absurdly wrong, but for some reason a really common view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
What would a society that regularly treated 95th percentile problems as actionable in drastic ways even look like?
Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What would a society that regularly treated 95th percentile problems as actionable in drastic ways even look like? Probably one that could safely use nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Probably one that could safely use nuclear power. We can do that too, we are just inexplicably terrified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
China enacts cap and trade for power plants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-19/china-unveils-plan-for-world-s-biggest-carbon-trading-market quote:China’s market would bring about a quarter of the world’s emissions under some kind of trading system. It would cover more carbon pollution than the EU’s market, whose yearly allowances are currently valued at 14 billion euros ($16.5 billion) a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
quote:When you can convince a majority, or even a significant minority, of climate scientists to accept a 95th percentile case as the most probable one, I'll start taking it seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Even banning beef would probably require a dictatorship. you don't need to ban beef, air travel, cars, coal, oil or natural gas what you need is a carbon tax and to properly price externalities which doesn't require a dictatorship, but it does require "but corporate profits!" water carriers such as yourself to admit that maybe, just maybe, corporate america needs to take a haircut to solve this problem Owlofcreamcheese posted:What would a society that regularly treated 95th percentile problems as actionable in drastic ways even look like? our society? there are all kinds of problems where we worry about the 95th percentile, its not like aircraft makers are sitting there saying "you know what, 1/20 sounds good, send that bad boy up, its only a 5% chance it will crash" 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:We can do that too, we are just inexplicably terrified. I agree, we clearly don't see 1 in 20 reactors meltdown every year. The point was more that we need to take 5% risk probabilities seriously in some contexts. Nuclear power is an obvious example. Any reactor design or plant that has a 5% risk of meltdown is absolutely getting shutdown no matter the cost. The argument is we should absolutely apply the same standard to climate change and attempt to account for 95% percentile (or higher) outcomes given their catastrophic nature. Our society isn't doing this for obvious reasons (cost, capitalism is a disease etc), but I'm surprised it's controversial here. edit: ^^^^ what they said. It's actually a very common standard, every major skyscraper and bridge is engineered should be expected to survive a 1 in 20 year storm or earthquake. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
self unaware posted:you don't need to ban beef, air travel, cars, coal, oil or natural gas I have no problem with a carbon tax so I've no idea what you're on about. In fact, it's exactly the sort of policy I'd advance, as opposed to the drastic and completely fictional ones I keep seeing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I have no problem with a carbon tax so I've no idea what you're on about. In fact, it's exactly the sort of policy I'd advance, as opposed to the drastic and completely fictional ones I keep seeing. I wanna ban beef just to have geeks like you meltdown about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Good news everyone. Treating climate sensitivity with a 95% confidence interval gives you... exactly the values used by the IPCC, with a slightly higher lower bound. If anything they need to lower that upper bound to 4.0.
Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
The Groper posted:I said "don't fly, keep your vacations within reasonable motoring distance if you must" about something last week and it derailed a thread, just lol into the wind and admit we're hosed without a butlerian jihad and only very slightly less hosed with one Some sort of solar fuel (electrolysis of water to hydrogen, convert to NH4 etc or maybe algae-based) is needed for longer routes. Stuff under 500mi will probably go electric when we see a 2x improvement in battery energy density.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Good news everyone. Treating climate sensitivity with a 95% confidence interval gives you... exactly the values used by the IPCC, with a slightly higher lower bound. If anything they need to lower that upper bound to 4.0. Sweet blog post bro (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Sweet blog post bro It's a blog post by one of the leading scientists in the field of climate sensitivity, who's published more journal articles than you'll ever read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What would a society that regularly treated 95th percentile problems as actionable in drastic ways even look like? Have you never heard of the war on terror? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What would a society that regularly treated 95th percentile problems as actionable in drastic ways even look like? Most of the time the 95th probably doesn't equal extinction/vast human suffering SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 03:28
|
|
