|
"Sir, as your doctor I must warn you; unless you undergo treatment we can predict with 66% certainty that you'll have 1-6 years left to live." "Wait, you mean you have a 6 year margin of error and only with 66% certainty?? Those error bars indicate to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, cannot tell the future, and that I don't need treatment. See you later!"
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Manchester posted:God dammit I had to read this thread and see what's coming. Welp, we lived through several ice ages, I'm sure we'll make it through this. We haven't lived through several ice-ages, we evolved and have lived exclusively in just one of them. Our species is only ~200,000 years old. The current ice-age started ~2,000,000 years ago. Maybe humans can survive outside of an ice-age, but maybe they can't. Probably they can, but its going to take some major adjustments. More to the point, the faster we come out of this ice-age the harder it will be to make a smooth transition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Bilal X posted:Yeah as with any technological solution it mostly comes down to sheer scale - it's not like there's some horrible intrinsic flaw, but the investment (in money, energy and materials) required to implement CO2 removal on a global scale would just be mind-boggling. Here's a quote from Daniel Yergin about CCS, which has similar challenges: To be fair, saying "the daily volume of liquids so handled would be about equal" does not give us any useful information. It would seem to me that sequestering C02 at a rate of 1 liter liquid co2 : 1 liter oil consumed would be a monumental step forward. Regarding the cost and scale of this hypothetical effort; while it is staggering to think that we would need "trillions of dollars" to match the rate of fossil fuel consumption it is somewhat easier to imagine doubling the cost of gasoline, natural gas, and coal. While this would obviously be a tough pill to swallow it would be doable if you make the tax appropriately progressive.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
The Ender posted:How receptive do you think most energy conglomerates would be to this idea? Or even the idea of large scale CCS implementation / enforcement? I don't know, 0%? I'm not offering a magic bullet I'm just responding to a somewhat unfair treatment of sequestration technology by the excerpt posted.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Its bullshit. What else can anyone say? Why would you accept for even one second someone giving you a WordPress blog made by a random guy with a BS in mechanical engineering as a refutation of an IPCC report?
Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Aug 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:I'd like to point out that we aren't hosed. Dirt-poor people in the third world as well as habitat restricted animals are hosed. We'll just deal. We don't know that we will "just deal". For all of the theatrical skepticism that is leveled at the actual science of global warming it amazes me that unverified statements like this are allowed a free pass. Lets be clear; there is more scientific certainly that global warming is real and a serious threat than there is that rich people will be fine during its most acute effects.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
seniorservice posted:Guess what's on the front page of foxnews! The article's 2nd source is a scientist though! They somehow managed to land respected climatologist Roy Spencer. Check out this quote of his they used for the article: quote:"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. Oh wait thats not the quote they used? Hold on I think it was this one actually: quote:“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:If you want graphs, you should look at this one too: That graph is interesting but leaves out a lot of context. What is the total energy in joules of each of these areas in the first place? A change of 15*10^22 joules in total oceanic energy could be an extreme change or it could be a completely negligable change. I'm also interested in why the graph starts at 1960. Is this the first year data is available?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
Holy Calamity! posted:The worst projections have always meant most of the planet becomes uninhabitable (for humans) + mass extinction. Take solace in the fact that climate models are incredibly complicated and no one model can accurately project an outcome without a shadow of a doubt. Do whatever you can to make a positive impact on your local environment and stay positive. Lamenting what you think may be inevitable doesn't help anyone, especially yourself. Don't you think that discussing the fact that humans have the power to destroy all known macroscopic life is important? I think that globally humans were more conscious of our ability to become extinct in the 1970s but that we've taken steps backward since then.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Not particularly - and I mean this in two contexts. The first is the broader "public" context: No one wants to read that article, and they probably won't, because the concept of this horrible apocalypse bearing down on their everyday life is not going to spur them to some kind of action nor move them towards a better lifestyle, precisely because it is apocalyptic. Time and again, fear as a framing mechanism ("You've got to do something or it's all over!") has proven to be a poor motivator. The mental function of disavowal will take over as soon as they step outside and see the green grass, birds singing, etc. The second is in the more narrow context of this thread: Is there anyone here who disagrees with the notion that climate change is a very serious problem that can and will have a direct impact on much of the life on Earth? There are varying degrees of concern in this thread. Not everyone who reads the thread posts replies and I think there might be a tendency for people who dissent with the majority of posters to stay away from the discussion. I don't think that your point about fear applies. I think that fear is a poor motivator when it's fear for fear's sake. I believe that an honest and objective appraisal of a situation is a great motivator for change. Where I object to reporting that causes fear is when that reporting is not objective or reasonable and in those cases we would both agree that fear is a poor motivator. If anything we should stop insisting that the public doesn't care or can't understand or is childish or willfully ignorant. I believe that people are intelligent and that many people are the victim of misinformation and that we can help them through accurate discussion of the realities of climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:Discussing your theories on the function of taxation would unfortunately be a bit of a derail here, but I am baffled by your position on the existence of global warming and would like to know more. Do you believe that temperatures aren't rising climate-wide over time? Do you think there's some sort of hoax or mass delusion among scientists (and insurance adjustors)? I can see the occasional reactionary or contrarian deciding it isn't as bad as reported or that the causes and projected outcomes are wrong, but there are vanishingly few people who straight up just don't believe anymore. No anthropic change? No sea-rise? No weather pattern shifts? All coincidence or foolishness? Further; if that person doesn't believe in global warming why would they think its a good idea to tax ("punish" in their worlds) carbon emissions? If carbon dioxide doesn't increase the warmth of the planet what else is it doing that would motivate us to limit its release?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I can't speak to the rest of the world...but in the US, no not at all. The valuation of Tesla right now expects gigantic growth, and for good reason. I wouldn't worry too much about infrastructure: that will be built to meet demand. We already have 200 mile range batteries with 500 mile range batteries on the horizon both from Tesla and IBM (~5 years from now). Batteries are only going to become cheaper and more efficient. Tesla is ~3 years away from a $35k-$40k car, according to them. Fast forward a decade from now, and there's probably affordable electric cars being produced by most car manufacturers. Fast forward 15-20 years and electric cars are being sold in massive quantities. This graph is cumulative sales. It would therefore be impossible for the graph to have a downward trend and if we look closely at the difference between each bar it would appear that sales of these cars are almost totally flat with a constant rate sold each year.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Did I say he was analyzing climate science? He was looking at the climate models, which are nothing but numbers. They are statistical forecasts. We can match up forecasts with real world observations and see if they match or not. You'd be stupid not do to this. So far the models do not come remotely close to forecasting observations, which was the entire purpose behind the writing of the Nature article that began this topic (discovering why the models are so bad). You've personally pointed out in this thread that weather forecasts aren't climate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Heard a quote from a guy named Farley Mowat today that pretty much hits that feeling like a nailhead: To be fair this analogy would have us transforming into spores by building a protective layer around ourselves so that we can start up again once conditions are more favorable. http://beersmith.com/blog/2008/07/25/yeast-washing-reusing-your-yeast/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:What's the point of setting a toxx with a deadline of 2020. No one's going to remember and no one gives a poo poo about your double daring him. Yeah, who in their right mind would post on a single forum for 6 years? Arkane posted:For climate change policy & the developing world, Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. You could also just watch the movie...the first 30 minutes of the documentary aren't that good, but the last hour is well worth the watch. I recommend The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel which is a book dedicated to explaining all of the bad science in Cool It. Bjorn Lomborg P.S is an adjunct professor of business which makes him an excellent source for great climate science. Also here is an excerpt from his wikipedia page: quote:Accusations of scientific dishonesty Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Arkane you never addressed my post about your recommended book. Do you still recommend it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Arkane's favorite book on global warming was written by an adjunct professor of business and the book was cited by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty for fabrication of data, selective discarding of unwanted results, deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, and plagiarism.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Call me crazy... but, at school? He has a point. If you asked me "Is the universe 13.8 billion years old" I would have to answer that I don't know. I know its some number of billions of years old but 13.8 is a pretty specific number to have memorized. efb
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
While some people would argue that the overall quality of this thread is decreasing, I've isolated several periods of time where the quality has increased. For example, between pages 54 and 58, 84 and 89, 134 to 139. Based on these upwards trends I cannot imagine how anyone could be ignorant enough to claim there is an overall downward trend. The thread is simply too complex to predict.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Kumo posted:Our oceans are becoming more acidic due to CO2 as well, and it's starting to affect sea life by dissolving the shells of mollusks: Whats the problem, it goes from 8 to 8.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Arkane's favorite book on climate change was written by an adjunct professor of business who was cited by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty for fabrication of data, selective discarding of unwanted results, deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, and plagiarism. Okay, well see you guys later.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
While I understand that burning methane is better than releasing it there is something poetic about being excited by the opportunity to harvest this extra form of fossil fuel that is being released by the Earth's warming.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Good write-up by Revkin on the oceans/atmosphere and how it relates to the hiatus: The quote you're pulling that from is: A) Clearly in regards to the last 2 decades B) Clearly in regards to anthropogenic warming that took place in spite of the "pause" in overall warming. 3) Mangled to the point that the person who is being quoted requested a chance to expand on the quote per the footnote
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Few of these things would actually do anything to help mitigation or adaptation besides convincing the ignorant. Only concerted effort from powerful actors will work now. That means organizing and political action. The "everybody do their small part" is an engagement myth. Living well is its own reward and it DOES help. It might make the problem .000000000001% better but our choices do matter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Seems a bit unsophisticated at first blush (and I'd hazard to say redundant with ECS/TCS), but here are their results mapped with climate models from the study: I this. "I seriously doubt we're going above 800, so [we won't]". Phew, I can sleep sound tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Arkane posted:It's called an opinion. Relax. You think they have any clue what emissions are going to be in 2100? They have no idea. Clearly we have some idea. The way that you plan for the future is you take your available information and you make the best possible plan you can. What you don't do is throw up your hands, declare it impossible to know, and make no plans. Even an animal as dumb as a squirrel makes plans for winter so I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that to you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
This duck had never been scrubbed with a toothbrush before today, but thanks to oil a graduate student is now carefully cleaning each and every feather. Have ducks ever had it so good?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where did I say that? All I said is that scientific consensus isn't "BAU == Apocalypse," which is very true. That really depends a lot of the definition of apocalypse. For most capitalists the end of perpetual growth is the apocalypse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I think a better question to ask is "how much" americans believe in climate change. I think that they have the will provided they have someone to tell them what to do. The biggest problem is that ordinary people don't know what actions to take. You have people in this very thread telling others that driving less or installing solar panels is going to do nothing to fix the problem. For regular people there is literally no solution. Its really a problem looking for a leader. From an American perspective the issue is that our leaders aren't independent of business in a way that allows for us to be lead out of peril.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Remember that it's 20 metric tons of one of the densest metals there is. Volume-wise it isn't that much really. A cubic meter of uranium weighs 20 metric tons but the waste is a combination of materials and is heavily mixed with lighter materials like ceramics and glass. If I had to take a stab at it I would guess the density of most waste around the density of glass or something like 3 metric tons per cubic meter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I can't imagine how a reactor of any kind would achieve the conditions necessary for a "nuclear bomb" type explosion. I would imagine Chernobyl was the closest to that and it didn't even level the building, let alone the plant complex. They kept running the other reactor well into the 1990s even.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Although its not clear to me how much of that was because they had to and how much was because they could.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Seems like any voluntary environmentally-motivated fertility reduction would be pretty self-limiting, anyway, since within a generation or two the great majority of the population would have been raised by people who didn't consider that to be a reasonable tradeoff. I hate to break it to you but all of the people discussing not having kids in this thread were themselves born to parents who had kids.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And instead of not having kids, someone else could just live a less resource intensive life than you and do better for the species and the climate. And yet there are multiple nations with long term declining birth rates that extend beyond a single generation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its almost as if the decline in birthrates aren't because people are actively choosing to not have kids to support the climate and instead are the result of complex social factors.... Complex Social Factors that reduce birth rates: *The economy * Resource availability * Overpopulation * perceptions of a child's future well being * The environment Complications caused by global warming: *Reduction of economy *Resource scarcity *Increased population pressure *lowered perceptions of the future *destruction of natural habitat Now consider why I was scoffing at the idea that a decreased birthrate as a reaction to global warming would be a temporary phenomenon restricted to a single generation. Trabisnikof posted:Also if your climate solution is to use declining birth rates to reduce impacts, I have to let you know that this is a perfect example of "too little too late." Voluntarily dropping the population to 2 Billion would take far longer than we have. Everything is too little to late. We're already in the middle of global warming. There is nothing that will prevent it. Now we can talk about the little things that we can do to reduce the eventual total harm but nobody in this thread is saying that we can avoid it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Also to point out that the weird jet stream this year is not climate - it's a weather event from a single year and cannot be determined to be an effect of climate change one way or another as this deals with probabilities and frequencies. You got confused somewhere and translated "choose to not have kids" into "the government should institute strict population control measures". You're arguing against literally nobody. For someone who is railing against "sperg" ideals you seem to have a pretty self righteous writing style and low social awareness yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It doesn't matter much in terms of the overall thrust of your argument, but you have causality backwards there. Improved education and reduced poverty decreases birthrates, not vice versa. The phrase "are associated with" doesn't imply a causality in either direction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Also to point out that the weird jet stream this year is not climate - it's a weather event from a single year and cannot be determined to be an effect of climate change one way or another as this deals with probabilities and frequencies. Check out this stunning logic: 1) The climate is too complex for us to assert positively that a single event was "caused" by climate change. 2) Therefore this (any) single event wasn't caused by climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Nobody is talking about "implementing" anything. Having a kid hurts the environment quite a bit more than most typical individual choices do. In addition it wasn't even brought up as a way to solve climate change but as a way to reduce the suffering of your own child. I'm not sure I would want to toss a new human into an increasingly uncertain world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are you choosing to never have children solely to reduce carbon emissions? If not, then that theoretical baby wasn't going to happen anyway and you're as honest as when logging companies claim un-harvestable wood for carbon credits. Or if you later decide to have kids, well you never actually had the offsets you claimed to begin. This is some crazy hair splitting. By the same logic installing carbon scrubbers is only a theoretical emissions savings because maybe the factory will shut down after we decide to purchase them but before we install them. Those improvements to the environment are only in the future so why bother?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 22:12
|
|