|
lmao if you think that guy will make meaningful lifestyle changes
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
the best way to reduce your impact is to write about reducing your impact that way people know that you're reducing your impact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Vacations are for dweebs, go to a park u kitschy fuckers. There is beauty in a leaf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Essentially, the guy is talking out his rear end and trying to use big numbers to muddy the water. His basic claim is that it takes a lot of heat to increase the temperature of water compared to air on a per-mass basis (true). He seems to then take the measured data that show increased ocean temperatures and "prove" they're wrong by comparing the energy required to heat the ocean by that amount to the amount of energy produced by human technology. A fair comparison, if we were claiming that human industry is DIRECTLY heating the globe (we are not). He also compares the energy required to heat the ocean and calculates the required air temperature to equal that amount of energy (pointless and stupid). The man is obviously either a) stupid, or b) paid to muddy the water with his ham-fisted poo poo talking. GreyjoyBastard posted:Griffen, i think that's actually the best / most penetrable explanation of the physics mechanics I've heard. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shipping-pollution-sea-open-loop-scrubber-carbon-dioxide-environment-a9123181.htmlquote:Global shipping companies have spent billions rigging vessels with “cheat devices” that circumvent new environmental legislation by dumping pollution into the sea instead of the air, The Independent can reveal. lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shipping-pollution-sea-open-loop-scrubber-carbon-dioxide-environment-a9123181.html So I had a suspicion about what "Open Loop Scrubber" actually means here. A ridiculously quick Google search later, I landed on the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9216376. quote:(a) providing a seawater; Basically, they literally just run the exhaust through PH-balanced sea water. They might as well just put the exhaust pipe underwater and call it a day. It's THAT bad. Aramis fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
My chemistry is weak - what I'm seeing from this is a ship in the restricted waters of a harbour surrounded by a halo of acidic water with high sulphur and godnosewhatelse exhaust poisons in it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:lmao if you think that guy will make meaningful lifestyle changes Notorious R.I.M. posted:the best way to reduce your impact is to write about reducing your impact that way people know that you're reducing your impact. He did stop flying though and campaigns for it now. And does write for one of the biggest papers in Sweden, so yes I do think he has had an impact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:My chemistry is weak - what I'm seeing from this is a ship in the restricted waters of a harbour surrounded by a halo of acidic water with high sulphur and godnosewhatelse exhaust poisons in it? I don't know why they would bother with such devices, the entire shipping industry worldwide is set to (finally) switch to low-sulphur bunker fuels by 2020. Of course the petrol industry had to be dragged there kicking and screaming that cleaning up ship fuel the same way as Diesel would raise prices a bit, and that storing all that sulphur safely somewhere is an inconvenience. ...just kidding of course, they leave it sitting in huge open pits, visible from space 
sauer kraut fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
It's kinda sad how desperate people are to one weird trick, owned climatetards their way out of this mess. Check out the view numbers on this article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full Articles in 2.7 impact factor journals otherwise, uh, "rather rarely" manage to rack up those numbers 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 10:08
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I’ve been explaining radiative forcing like this: It's close, with a few nit-picky distinctions. First, most of the solar energy is absorbed if it makes it to the surface, depending on surface conditions. That's why cloud cover, white polar ice, and similar surfaces are so important - they reflect more than they absorb. The ocean absorbs most incident solar radiation, while white ice reflects most; remelted ice or particulate-contaminated black ice absorbs energy. I'm not sure how much is reflected off the atmosphere, I think UV absorption by the ozone layer is selective just to UV radiation. The amount of energy radiated by a hot body goes with the fourth power of temperature, so the Sun's heat flux (radiated power per unit area) at it's surface is vastly higher than that of the earth. That is mitigated by the distance away from the Sun our planet sits, but even by the time it reaches the Earth, solar radiation has a higher flux than the Earth's radiative cooling. It's similar to using a heat lamp - the incident heat flux is higher than the heat flux out of the body, so the body will slowly heat up until its emitted heat equals the incident heat (in a restaurant food line, convective cooling also plays a part, but we don't have that in space). A key distinction is that the wavelength of the energy radiated from the Earth is very different from the wavelength of solar radiation (which is a wide spectrum, but mostly infrared to UV I think). The Earth is emitting mostly in infrared or below. Thus the fraction of energy that is captured and redirected by CO2 is much higher for the Earth's thermal emissions than the Sun's. The RCPs, if I'm reading them correctly, are modeled projections of how the atmosphere's greenhouse gas content (in terms of effective CO2 concentration) will evolve over time based on our emissions. I don't know how many of them take into account feedback loops like permafrost melting, so that is a whole other can of worms. So as the effective CO2 concentration goes up, the amount of thermal radiation redirected by CO2 and other GHGs increases, tipping the thermal balance. It isn't so much that the power is deposited into the air (which the whack job was trying to use as a means of disproving climate change) but rather into the entire global system. Heat deposited into the oceans will spread out, via convection in the ocean, evaporation into the atmosphere, storm systems, etc. Hurricanes getting stronger? That's the excess thermal energy trying to spread out and relax the system. As for a metaphor, I'm currently trying to replace my home's windows. A window salesman was demonstrating their new low-emissivity coating that they put on windows to reduce radiative heat transfer into or out of the home. As a demo, he put up a model window and put a heat lamp on the other side of it. Without the window, you can feel the heat flux from the lamp, but with the window in the way, you can't feel a thing - the coating on the window reflects the heat back to the lamp. In our case, the Earth is the heat lamp, and the low-emissivity coating is CO2 in the atmosphere. The incident light from the Sun comes through the window just fine, but as the Earth tries to re-radiate heat back out into space, the CO2 redirects the heat back to Earth. The danger is that a little shift in CO2 concentrations shifts the equilibrium conditions of that thermal balance, which can have large shifts down the line. The Earth has a lot of thermal inertia, so the process takes a long time, which is why it is so easy to ignore. TL,DR - your analogy is functionally correct, I'm just a nit-pick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:I don't know why they would bother with such devices, the entire shipping industry worldwide is set to (finally) switch to low-sulphur bunker fuels by 2020. I think it's an either/or situation. New rules require less crap out the stack, cleaner fuel or scrubbing the exhaust - your choice rich ship owners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:I don't know why they would bother with such devices, the entire shipping industry worldwide is set to (finally) switch to low-sulphur bunker fuels by 2020. This is the hilarious part of the guys in Energy Generation thread arguing "Natural Gas" will be clean and regulated. These guys never abide regulation. They always do the least amount required or try to hide issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
I mean, there's also the simple fact that natural gas generation is a thing right now and it is neither clean nor well regulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Griffen posted:It's close, with a few nit-picky distinctions. First, most of the solar energy is absorbed if it makes it to the surface, depending on surface conditions. That's why cloud cover, white polar ice, and similar surfaces are so important - they reflect more than they absorb. The ocean absorbs most incident solar radiation, while white ice reflects most; remelted ice or particulate-contaminated black ice absorbs energy. I'm not sure how much is reflected off the atmosphere, I think UV absorption by the ozone layer is selective just to UV radiation. The amount of energy radiated by a hot body goes with the fourth power of temperature, so the Sun's heat flux (radiated power per unit area) at it's surface is vastly higher than that of the earth. That is mitigated by the distance away from the Sun our planet sits, but even by the time it reaches the Earth, solar radiation has a higher flux than the Earth's radiative cooling. It's similar to using a heat lamp - the incident heat flux is higher than the heat flux out of the body, so the body will slowly heat up until its emitted heat equals the incident heat (in a restaurant food line, convective cooling also plays a part, but we don't have that in space). A key distinction is that the wavelength of the energy radiated from the Earth is very different from the wavelength of solar radiation (which is a wide spectrum, but mostly infrared to UV I think). The Earth is emitting mostly in infrared or below. Thus the fraction of energy that is captured and redirected by CO2 is much higher for the Earth's thermal emissions than the Sun's. That’s very helpful, thanks! And my audience tends to be lay professionals/tradespeople and students so I have to avoid terms like incident radiation and heat flux. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:It's kinda sad how desperate people are to one weird trick, owned climatetards their way out of this mess. Check out the view numbers on this article: The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables. https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/patrick-frank Nice. A paid denier shill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
I found a new climate denier argument, or at least one I've never seen in the wild. The following is .text So I was thinking. Here's a question about "experts". And I don't want to debate, but asking a real life question. Based on "facts and science" the nutritional table has been turned upside down and flip flopped more times than we can all count. If we can't even trust the experts on that, how can we trust the so called experts about climate change, when obviously the world is in constant change? Just curious. Plus I'm bored at work. Theres more rambling about how "many scientists" have predicted the world to end numerous times since 1918. I'm sure hed bring up Pluto's classification as another example to distrust experts. It's just such a wacky argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:I found a new climate denier argument, or at least one I've never seen in the wild. The following is .text
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
I mean yeah, nutrition science has published a lot of trash over the years. They do deserve some blame for constantly putting out low significance studies with tissue thin conclusions that get picked up in the media and become a constant barrage of conflicting messages. It certainly doesn't make people confident in science. Not to mention the sugar bribery debacle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
There's a lot of trash science out there, but like a solid 95% of the blame rests with media outlets for failing to hire people who can actually understand what they're reading and report on it properly. A lot of mistrust in science comes from the media's insistence on reporting anything written by a scientist as absolute truth, which naturally makes people suspicious when those same "facts" are refuted a few years later. Better science education would help too, but it's mostly just poo poo reporting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Trash science is largely driven by...  .The Egg Institute of Egg Science has found that you should eat all the Eggs every day. But you can't own your own chickens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:I found a new climate denier argument, or at least one I've never seen in the wild. The following is .text Trying to sow doubt along experts is an extremely old denialist trick. They neglect to mention that climate science is full of debate and disagreement like any other field. The fact that a bunch of contentious scientists can come to the level of consensus they do is a testament to how clear the signal is. The only people left doubting are non peer reviewed fools on blogs that are anywhere from useful idiots to paid agitprop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
  gently caress the dairy industry WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:
Yeah see here's the thing. People have to eat. If you make a list of polluting industries on a cost/benefit scale (which is what we should do), just about every single industry on earth is more damaging than any food production in general. That said, should factory farms, beef production and industry farming be heavily curtailed and farming made renewable with electrification and sustainable practices? Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Yeah see here's the thing. People have to eat. If you make a list of polluting industries on a cost/benefit scale (which is what we should do), just about every single industry on earth is more damaging than any food production in general. People don't have to eat meat. We are massively over-eating animal products and its aiding in killing our planet. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
The meat industry does not need to exist and should not. It's one of those things that needs to go in its entirety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:People don't have to eat meat. We are massively over-eating animal products and its aiding in killing our planet. People don't have to have children either. We're still overpopulating the globe. Hell, if we need to give everything on the cost/benefit spectrum equal attention, ambulances run on gas and really really shouldn't. Should we focus on that too? While probably nobody serious in this thread supports the meat industry, us inevitably killing off fish everywhere means our protein needs to come from somewhere. Should it be factory beef/dairy farms? Absolutely not, those should go. Is every single instance of meat production and or dairy production evil and should be dispensed with? Well, one surefire way to turn public opinion against you is to gently caress with people's food supply. If you want effective action against emissions, "gently caress the dairy industry" is not helpful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Plants have protein
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
Eat some drat tofu you maniac.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
You: Our protein has to come from somewhere! Me: 
vyelkin fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
But how will I buy my $30 sheepskin rugs at Costco if we end the mutton industry? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
There is no excuse for eating beef. (from here, last year)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:People have to eat (vegetables and some nuts to survive). Indeed. We'd be fine not being carnivores. Good point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
If you need animal protein so bad just eat cricket powder, or poultry if you’re a baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There is no excuse for eating beef. It tastes good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:If you need animal protein so bad just eat cricket powder Congratulations, you just lost half of your Green New Deal support. NPOF's point was that while there are certainly better ways of realigning the agricultural sector, blanket statements like "ban all meat," "eat some drat tofu you maniac," etc. will lose you support from people who are otherwise on-board with massive structural reform. There are a lot of regions that are agriculturally productive for grazing animals, and there's nothing wrong with using that land for that purpose. You're not going to grow wheat in Wyoming without massive and unsustainable irrigation, but you can do organic grass-fed livestock for meat & dairy. It is simply looking at the land at asking "what most effectively and sustainably can be raised here? Sometimes that will be tasty animals. I think we all agree that factory animal farms need to go as unsustainable. We all agree that the age of meat every day is unsustainable and needs to end. People need to eat more plant protein as humans did before 1800, no one argues that. Demanding that everyone lives on cricket dust and tofu and they should like it or forever be an enemy of progress... that is you being unreasonable, illogical, and pedantic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
I recall once seeing some kind of documentary on how cattle raising essentially destroys the Great Plains' biodiversity since they aren't adapted to it like bison were and gently caress the place up by trampling everything, especially near water. Wish I could remember what it was, think it was some kind of Dateline-type show had an episode on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:I recall once seeing some kind of documentary on how cattle raising essentially destroys the Great Plains' biodiversity since they aren't adapted to it like bison were and gently caress the place up by trampling everything, especially near water. Wish I could remember what it was, think it was some kind of Dateline-type show had an episode on that. Luckily bison is both naturally adapted to the Great Plains and delicious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Congratulations, you just lost half of your Green New Deal support. This is not the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is. If going one step too far turns supporters into people who say "you know what? let's actually let the planet burn" then you never had the support of those people in the first place. When you say this, you're essentially saying that these people are just as unwilling to compromise as the person that you're complaining about and that no middle ground can be reached. I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your post because it doesn't really have anything to do with the point I'm making, I'm just sick of this particular talking point. You're not helping your argument, you're just reinforcing the position of the people you're trying to convince.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is not the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is. If going one step too far turns supporters into people who say "you know what? let's actually let the planet burn" then you never had the support of those people in the first place. When you say this, you're essentially saying that these people are just as unwilling to compromise as the person that you're complaining about and that no middle ground can be reached. Then the takeaway I'm getting from your argument is that unless you/whatever reform movement doesn't get 100% of their demands, then it isn't worth doing. Let's say you have a GND with 90% of your policy initiatives but it doesn't include banning meat - do you say that the people willing to enact this 90% plan didn't really support it since they won't go 100% of what you want? Isn't the crisis we're facing now not a matter of getting some silver bullet reform through (since we're going to hit 2 deg C of heating now no matter what we do), but to improve whatever we can to slow the bleeding (make it 2-3 deg C of heating rather than 7 deg C)? If you want to be all purist, go for it, don't let me stop you. But don't complain that nothing is getting done if all you want is complete and total transformation that people are unwilling to do. I'd rather get a good set of policy reforms than dream of a perfect set of reforms that will never happen. A point some people seem to be ignoring is that we don't live in an ideal world where it is simply down to selecting a plan that solves all problems, but rather it is trying to figure out what plans can we push forward that will actually get enacted. Saying "full communism revolt of the ecological cricket-eating proletariat now!" may make you feel good, but that doesn't change the grim reality we are facing. Is it unreasonable that people are unwilling to let go of creature comforts that are unsustainable and are only exacerbating the problem? Yes. However, that is the reality we are in. Human nature is as much a force in play as the climate. Any change you want to make on the climate first has to go through the system that is human nature, and ignoring those impacts is just as dangerous as ignoring CO2 feedback mechanisms. Just like it's harder to make an alcoholic smoker quit both habits cold turkey, it's harder to transform multiple sectors of society at once, particularly for sensitive things like the food supply. That's why reforming energy, transportation, and other large sectors is an easier pill to swallow first. You want to make everyone eat crickets? Fine, show me how you plan on convincing them to do so that accounts for our unwillingness to accept change on such an emotional level. Otherwise you're also just reinforcing the position of the people you're trying to convince.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:53
|
|