|
I am honestly glad I took those Boreal forest bushcraft survival lessons. All I need is my gear and I'm leaving this place.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Out of morbid curiosity, I jumped on RealClimate to see what's what. Apparently, a new paper was published not long ago that shows new data on El Nino and volcanic eruptions. These variables were causing a net decrease in stats regarding surface temperature (I think), leading to the deniers claiming that global warming stopped in 1998. The adjusted variables show that global warming is not only continuing, it's accelerating, as 2010 was the strongest La Nina year on record. Edit: actually, what really caught my eye was the comment section on New Scientist, where an army of trolls calling themselves "wombats" attacked the results with predictably bad smears. Check it out. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
I'm certain I saw something about a carbon absorption plastic that absorbed carbon in air and released it in water that was carbon negative throughout the manufacturing process and everything because of its potential. Can't figure out what the guy's name was, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Hey, I'm currently working on a write up for something similar, discussing new mechanisms for emissions reductions. I'd love to collaborate, though most of my stuff will be Canada-centric.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
"If there's no action by 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." - Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC 2007 At the end of roughly 36 pages of writing about climate change, governance schemes and global inaction, I'm about ready to learn how to subsistence farm and hunt. Maybe I'll make money selling survival gear to dumb yuppies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Sorensen is a great salesman, and in a lot of ways he's dead on. However, the impression I get from him and Flibe is the same as that great TED talk on the Pentagon's New Road Map by Barnes. Everyone seemed enamoured with a design for the military that would produce technically competent peacekeepers alongside a smaller but traditional unbeatable American army, until someone pointed out that it still suffers from some of the same terrible problems. As far as I can tell, LFTR has no problems that a traditional nuke doesn't, and is missing a lot that they are. It's going to be exceptionally expensive to build, though, and that's the difficulty right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
karthun posted:I don't want to derail (and I don't have PM) but what was the same terrible problems that exists with Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map? I'll just take a quick reply and let it drop.  Seriously, I'm not a GiP kind of guy; I'm just comparing LFTR's success to the kind of cachet that Barnett got back when D&D was war-mongering.Another problem with LFTR: Sorensen uses the picture of thorium's cross-section to sell this point in the Thorium Remix, but I'm pretty sure he's showing the FLiBe cross-section. The problem is the use of Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
What I wish for is an unbiased assessment of how long it would take to replace fossil fuels with nuclear, with appropriate deregulation steps and standardized machines, and what the trade off would be in safety, if there is one.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Viability of 7 billion people (or lets say 10 billion, the current estimate of when population will start declining again) is really up to what happens in the next 100 years. If aridity destroys agricultural heartlands, it's not viable. We have to define those parameters before we have this conversation.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
I'm trying to find an explanation of the confidences - will I have to go to each one to find it, or is there some general rule they use? edit: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Any information on how hot the world got overall?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Apparently, the guy is a wild self-promoter and has very little in the way of successful examples of this. I also want it to be true, though. edit: if someone is really interested, you can compare the detractors with the peer-reviewed stuff in their portfolio. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Longanimitas posted:I am completely convinced now that the CEO of XOM "doesn't see a viable pathway" to a 350ppm outcome. This rear end in a top hat has gone straight from denialism to "Welp, there's nothing anyone can do now! Certainly not us!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Maybe not. Also, why does that graph never show the whole season?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
muike posted:Beyond the CANDU reactors, what is Canada doing along the lines of alternative energy implementation and incentivization? How about the UK? Elsewhere in Canada is a bit of a mess. Alberta is obviously loving us all with almost 90% of their electricity being created by fossil fuels and putting up new gas plants. However, the government is (unevenly) putting money into renewables across the country. There are innovation funds and so on. We are expected to go about 80% non-fossil fuel (60% renewable including hydro) by 2035. Most of the fossil fuels will be natural gas, as coal plants are closing. It's not enough, mostly because of the tar sands being exploited. There's also a land-use change pattern in Canada that is not exactly our fault - the taiga is dying. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Oh look, Arkane posted - the goalposts must be moving again. Figure 5 from the link below is pretty clear about what HADGEM3 is forecasting.
I wish you would stop abusing models (which scientists are more than glad to talk about) in order to push a narrow point of view. edit: oh you're right - I must have mixed up figure 1 and figure 5. Needless to say, you should read the whole thing, because Watt's Up With That? isn't a great source when they selectively edit graphs. edit2: by the way, selectively editing graphs is model-abuse. In no way ever would I imply you got close enough to a model to abuse him or her. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
quote:We're at 13 years presently (2001-2013) and using the Met's own simulations, we'll be at 18 years with a ~0 trend in 2018. Your graph, grabbed from a website known for massaging numbers, is not credible. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
I don't know if he's read the thread long enough to know that putting "we don't know how much warming humans are causing" anywhere near the words climate science without a strong caveat that he's sure there's been a recognizable forcing on temperatures by anthropogenic carbon sources since the industrial revolution. I mean, the science is very confident about that, they might just not fully understand what has happened over the past decade in land temperatures.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's almost like saying "I went to medschool but I don't think medicine actually works, so I'm going to pray for God to fix my concussion then go take a nap"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
I guess maybe expect a lot of global south defaulting on debt in the hopes that controlling their own currency and policies will help to mitigate the damage. Clothes at the gap might become more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Yeah, calling me an idiot doesn't make you look like you feel superior. Your post didn't have much content as far as I could tell. As far as strawmen go, I've said I think the climate is warming and CO2 causes warming, but I'm not convinced of the strength of human added co2 on the climate, which I think is reasonable if the models seem to be generally getting things off and given the huge complexity of trying to model climate. And yes I know the argument will be it's to dangerous not to do anything, but I'm not suggesting doing nothing, just if the severity of cutting emmisions so quickly is a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
Did this thread ever discuss the validity of the ABC special Earth 2100? I think it kind of neatly fits into what we're talking about now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Somebody coined the annoying term "glocal" to describe that, and it's actually about as effective as you're saying. There are regional carbon trading programs that WORK, for instance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
AceSnyp3r posted:I've been lurking in this thread for the last few weeks now. As a geoscience student climate change stuff is really interesting to me, but I know enough to know that I don't know poo poo about it. Obviously things are looking pretty loving grim, but I'm curious as to if there's even a slight consensus as to how bad things are going to get. I seem to remember reading somewhere that we probably won't drive temperatures higher than they got in the Cretaceous, but I don't have a source on that anymore. Obviously we're going to be looking at a respectable mass extinction event, but we're not at risk of rendering the planet uninhabitable to surface plant and animal life even in the short term, are we?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
This IS the mass extinction event, happening right now. Chances are that won't wipe all plants off the face of the earth though. I don't think models are really looking that far ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Can anyone make sense of this? I notice some problems on the graph, but I'm just wondering where it plays into the science as it stands. (I really want it to be true, if only so that the Montreal Protocol ends up saving the world). edit: this is the paper: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732 edit2: bah never mind, apparently this claim is old as dirt. Wonder why it got published. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
There are materials that suck carbon dioxide out of the air, and release it when wet. I saw this in a BBC documentary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
This is a really depressing look at Greenland ice melt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9euZ6q4bEKs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Finndo posted:Has anyone ever tried to seriously and in a non-biased fashion grapple with the problem of very limited hard data regarding global temperatures? Every time I read a treatment of this issue (or non-issue, depending on who you read), I am struck by the huge leaps of logic that seem to underpin the arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Because adaption would be less traumatic than prevention? Especially if the estimates for the rate and amount of warming keep getting revised down edit: nobody mentioned catastrophic climate change except you, now you want to play the wounded martyr about hysterical screaming? Give me a loving break, you weasel. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I suppose that would depend on your definition of better. Maybe the fantasy greenpeace simple life isn't for everybody. We're baking climate change into the system every moment that people like you grasp at every straw not to do anything. Let's adapt instead of drastically cut? What the gently caress is adapting if not turning around the fossil fuel system completely? Doing a little isn't enough if methane clathrates start melting, or if Greenland glaciers slide into the ocean, or a number of other feedback scenarios occur. A number of people in this thread are posting that there is a feeling of dread involved with confronting the monumental change that will have to happen in their lifetimes. You think they're wrong because you swallowed a denier line about "rates and amounts being revised down". Here's a key loving fact, they haven't revised anything down, you disingenuous twat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:You are absolutely incorrect. I can tell you with great confidence that Kafka made that comment talking about the exact same thing as me. That's because I know Kafka has been following this thread and understands the science(not that it takes much to figure out there's a mass extinction going on). When I see the words "mass extinction", it doesn't set off alarm bells in my head because I know that it's the literal truth. This is more of you choosing to see his argument as something it's not. Nothing he said was wrong, you just made up another half to his post in your head and decided that he was saying something he never said. I'll give you an example - not long ago, some scientists published that a bacteria living in the guts of pandas could possibly turn biofuel production on its head. Energy in cellulose usually goes locked up after digestion. The bacteria could be commercialized to retrieve the energy in wasted food. If pandas had gone extinct, we may never have made this discovery. If the conservation of their species hadn't been an agreed upon environmentalist goal, they would have gone extinct. Every single species, every toad and butterfly, has the ability to provide natural innovations that we can take advantage of. Every single extinct species unexamined is an opportunity lost. And they've been going extinct at a rapidly accelerating rate due to humans. There has never been a more important time for us to truly grasp our impact on the environment, and the sneering attitude the "just asking questions" crowd has towards real conservation is just pathetic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
I believe there is currently a shipping vessel sailing through the passage. Somebody felt the risk was good enough to base an entire company on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
I don't think he's going to be very receptive to logical thinking if he assumes taxes are punitive. Assuming participating in society is punitive is pretty more definitional American Liberal thought.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What's even the point of saying poo poo like this? This is a guy who disagrees with the theory of global warming but is willing to let James Hansen's plan be put in to action and all you can do is be a dick? gently caress man, we really do have no hope.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:But some key points from that piece with regards to AR5
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Nermal posted:Considering the main message of this thread is that the environment is dependent on human activity, you might reflect that 87 years ago we didn't have transistors, integrated ciruits, jets, spaceflight, nuclear power or genetic engineering. So what value can any prediction of the climate nine decades into the future have? edit: vv ohohoho! Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Asking "what do you think the temperature will be in 2100?" is a trick I learned from a comments section somewhere. It requires a pretty quick answer. The follow up is equally revealing: "how do you come to that conclusion?" There are only a few answers to the question, and if any of them don't rely on science, then the guy is being a conspiracy theorist. That's how it always ends. I'm not saying that legit scientists don't have their doubts about things - an equal amount express fears outside print that it's WORSE - but if the "lukewarmist" or "skeptic" don't immediately come back with "here's a model that shows all of the current climate forces that says we'll be within tolerances in 2100", why the hell are we listening?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I don't know, but it seems that the catastrophic warming we have been told will happen/has already reached tipping point/is to late to do anything about will not occur in anything like the time frames predicted. want me to pull a number out of my arse? 1.5 degrees I'm glad to see that you pulled the lowest number published by the IPCC out of your rear end. Yes, it is considered 66% likely for surface temperatures to be at or over 1.5 degrees hotter by 2100. They also consider it 90% likely that it will be below 6 degrees. That means there is a one in ten chance of VERY CATASTROPHIC warming to happen. You're surely okay with betting on lukewarm, but are you really okay with betting on the latter? To be clear, the former is like betting on rock when paper and scissors mean really bad things happen to you if you're not prepared. Betting on lukewarm is going to allow money-interests to pick up the phone and scare their Congressmen. They have lobbyists and astroturfing campaigns. They can go on cable news and obfuscate the issue to death. How are we supposed to separate that from your "lukewarm" support for actual science?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
They meant non-publishing meterologists and atmospheric scientists at 65 and 59 percent.quote:327 Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists quote:345 In terms of strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables,
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 23:34
|
|