|
OhYeah posted:So what's going on with the winter this year? It is snowing in Egypt and Israel, but we here in Estonia in Northern Europe have seen almost no snow this year, most of the time it is +6 degrees celsius and raining, even now in the middle of December. What the hell? Well, it could be that the planet is in the early stages of catastrophic changes to its weather patterns. I think there's a thread posted somewhere about it.
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Way back on the first page and two years ago, there was a post about using an enzyme with a copper catalyst to turn CO2 into bicarbonate. Does anyone know if that ever panned out?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Right, but aside from what I'm doing already (I go to rallies and donate to groups like 350.org) what else is there to do? I've got a mop, and the tsunami's coming in. I'm going back to school to major in environmental engineering.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:We don't have much time. And I often feel that what I do, as someone who works in the field of public transportation, will make little difference and is coming too late. But I don't think I'm alone. Half of my department is under the age of 30. Most of my friends choose not to drive in one of the most auto-centric cities in North America. I have convinced two of them to give up their cars. It's not much, but it's the most I can loving do. I don't expect a medal, I'm not doing this for congratulations, I'm doing it to preserve my own sanity in the face of the overwhelming cognitive dissonance I feel. There was a pretty good reply a while back in one of the various "I've got depression" threads over at E/N that echoes this. The depressive view is "can't do anything about the big picture, so why do anything". However, the individual human beings who actually do things on a big picture-scale are few and far between (and often never imagined things would go as far as they did). What you can do are things that everyone can do and that other people are already doing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Seems to put the cart a bit before the horse, there. If this was still the first half of the last century, then sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Broken record on this, but I think the simplest explanation is deficient assumptions in the form of climate sensitivity (which perhaps goes hand-in-hand with more understanding of the role of oceans). Of course you do. And the vast majority of actual climatologists with actual degrees in this stuff don't find your simplest explanation convincing. Is there some reason you're more likely to be correct than they are, such as an established trend of fringe views turning out to be correct in the majority of cases?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not sure why my stance is so anathema to you. Picture a thread about evolution where a "creation science" advocate has spent the last 100 pages making GBS threads up the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Arkane posted:My stance is a perfectly reasonable explanation; in fact, the most reasonable explanation. Only by Discovery Institute standards. Once again, you've failed to explain why it is that your interpretation of what these numbers mean (catastrophic climate change is sufficiently unlikely to occur that we need not act to sharply limit greenhouse gas emissions) is more likely to be accurate than what the climatologists who report these numbers think will occur. Instead of continually cherry-picking portions of studies that only seem to agree with you if taken out of context (much as creationists do with that quote from Darwin, when Darwin goes on to explain exactly what he means in the next sentence), perhaps you could tell us why your layman's grasp of the subject is only shared by roughly one-thirtieth (and falling) of climatologists, with the distribution of this fringe being noticeably skewed towards the less reputable end of the profession's spectrum. The usual answer is that the majority of the profession has been swayed into professional dishonesty by the lure of research funding. Proponents of that view conveniently overlook both that fringe view climatologists are much more likely to get research funding from conservative or fossil fuel-based climate advocacy groups and that mainstream climatologists continually report pressure to cater to the fringe view as a condition of their funding. Hopefully, you've got something better than "many people are more likely to sacrifice their professional integrity for money than a few people, when all the pressure to do so is coming from those promoting the views shared by the few people".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Arkane posted:What position am I proposing that is only by shared by "roughly one-thirtieth (and falling) of climatologists"? The fringe position you've consistently taken in this thread over the last two years: that the data we currently have isn't indicative of forthcoming catastrophic climate change. I bolded the bit you keep missing when you try to claim you agree that climate change is occurring. This is another thing fringe position holders do, whether it's catastrophic climate change denialism, creationism, a conspiracy theory, or non-delusional etiologies for delusional conditions: you try to argue that your current talking point should be considered independently of the context of the actual position that you hold, when you're using that talking point to promote your position (which is often contrary to the conclusion reached by the research you're cherry-picking passages from). For the third time, is there some reason your interpretation of this data is more likely to be correct than the mainstream scientific interpretation (that catastrophic climate change is very probably going to occur)?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A friend linked me here: Your dimwitted friend (and the paper's author) doesn't appear to understand that Mars is a dead planet. The composition of Mars's atmosphere isn't changing and hasn't changed in quite some time. No greenhouse gasses are being added nor removed, so the average global temperature doesn't move from where it currently is. e: I mean seriously, this should have been blatantly obvious. Greenhouse gasses aren't some magical source of infinite heat. e2: VVVV Oh, hah. The author's a 9/11 truther of some sort and a Holocaust denier. You should find a new friend who doesn't bring you every little piece of bullshit he finds on the internet. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Speaking of the thread title... Well, at least Nye did unexpectedly well in revealing how poor the arguments for creationism were. Maybe he can pull it off again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:And that would be good if we had time for a million baby steps in the right direction, or indeed if we were actually taking those baby steps at all. As it is, we don't and we're not. Okay, so are you proposing (a) that we should do nothing at all, (b) that we should only pursue "magic bullet" solutions, or (c) some third option?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
enbot posted:Basically we better hope a scientific solution saves us (once poo poo actually does get real and countries get serious about it) because there is basically no hope on the other ends. Just look at the numbers. Anyone who thinks the world can get together and make the changes in the timeframe required is crazy. So, (b) "magic bullet", then? Do you think trying to advocate for emissions control in at least a few parts of the world in the meantime would make implementation of said bullet (a) easier, (b) more difficult, or (c) some third option?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Like the only thing I want that is relative to you is a nice link to the old "debate" you had with Cefte so I can put a link of it into your av as a warning to others. I suspect you mean this or this. Cefte posted:Whiplash Effect is indeed a terrible thing, but more stressful than that is the whiplash you inflict on posters in this forum, Arkane, when the resonance between your constantly shifting goalposts harmonizes with the shimmering flicker that is your cherry-picking of authoritative sources.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That's kind of unresponsive to Arkane's point, Is anything Arkane has to say something we're suddenly caring about? It's been consistently demonstrated that he's biased beyond any capacity to reasonably evaluate sources (or a Poe). No one can be on coal power if we want the species to survive catastrophic climate change. If that means wealthier nations have to assist developing nations in alternative power generation, then so be it. We're well past the point that we needed a global solution anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Even small changes give you a situation like Arizona, where Lake Mead is drying up. And the Hoover Dam also provides electricity to run air conditioning, which means Arizona has to turn to fossil fuels, creating even more carbon than in the forecast models.  : "We can desalinate all the rising ocean waters, use them to fill Lake Mead, then ship all the fresh water to India after it goes over the dam. Far more cost effective than making some sort of effort to control emissions. Won't someone else think of the global poor?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:Except I was and that wasn't what happened. You know you posted that poo poo in July of last year, right? The topic right now is the dimwits proposing that abandoning Earth for Mars is somehow a viable response to catastrophic climate change. Stop trying to shift it to regurgitating posts you made over six months ago.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:Yeah, mostly just the standard pushing away people who care about climate change "for the wrong reasons" I think. You'd assume having more reasons to be concerned about climate change would help bring even more people together, but it really seems to do the opposite. "Climate change is keeping us from pursuing [insert thing here]" is effectively one collection of reasons to be concerned about climate change, while not actually having anything to do with climate change. In regards to the discussion of climate change, why do we need to acknowledge your particular [insert thing here], other than that you can't stop posting about it? There's already a thread for Star Trek LARP.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Decade or two? Some models predict as early as summer of next year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:I'm not seeing anything that would explain how they would avoid the power gluts and shortages that Germany has been having under their new energy plan. I've heard development of hydrogen fuel cell technology advanced as a method of storing excess wind/solar/hydro power for later use. Rifkin's been talking about it for a few years now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5FU0N5nf8U), but I haven't looked into it much.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Sogol posted:and we live in closed thermodynamic system. No, we don't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Sogol posted:The self referential nature of my comment is not lost me. Not until you've developed some ability to present content in a comprehensible fashion. SA isn't a scientific journal and you'd still fail to pass peer review if it was.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Sogol posted:With respect to the forces considered in climate change no such matter exchange is occurring and it is considered a closed system. It would change things radically if it actually were an open system at that scale. Atmospheric tides were fairly important things to factor into climate models, last I knew.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Both of these are energetic, rather than exchange of matter. So the consensus of physicists is that gravity is a type of energy and has no relationship whatsoever to matter?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Currently, using hydrogen for energy storage actually promotes carbon emissions, since hydrogen requires both refined oil and another energy source to produce. If the world is some day able to run entirely on nuclear and renewables, then perhaps hydrogen would become an appropriate energy storage medium for vehicles. There's some interesting stuff going on with algal bioreactors, but since the process is based on photosynthesis, it's effectively just another form of solar power. It also still needs to be more efficient; running a car on hydrogen produced this way is around 4-6 times as expensive as gasoline, last I knew.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Seems like this is a question that is looming larger and larger. It's been explained to you, repeatedly, why there is no climate hiatus. We're all very sorry that you can't understand it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Will there ever be goalposts that cannot be moved, You seriously think you have any capacity to judge that other people move goalposts? Have you looked at your post history?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
enbot posted:Bingo, talking about switching to LEDs as a response to CC is really missing the big picture. This is not a problem that is fixed on an individual level. poo poo it's not even solved on a countrywide scale. Thanks for pointing out what we already know, like that child who points at odd-looking people in restaurants and loudly asks embarassing questions. While "the global paradigm needs to change" is the right answer and it's almost certainly too late for us to do so, the action we take shouldn't be "do nothing". So, how are you proposing that we motivate people to action on a global scale? You're not? Okay, we'll stick with "motivate people to action on a local scale, because that can eventually spread", because that's the best idea we've got right now. Feel free to suggest a better one. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Apr 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Picardy Beet posted:"hydrolienne"(Google translate failed me) Water turbine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Can I buy climate change derivatives? They're called oil futures.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
DoctorDilettante posted:Dyson's criticisms that our best high-level models fail to resolve things like aerosols and clouds (which is true), and therefore fail to describe our world (which is false) and cannot be trusted (which is dangerously false) reflect a really fundamental failure to understand or engage with the complexities of climate modeling. You'll have to explain this in detail to Arkane in order to get him to go away again and I could stand to learn more about the specifics of moving from the true thing to the false one.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Drakyn posted:The book in which he expressed his views on global warming, which you seem to approve of, was lambasted widely as uninformed propaganda by basically everyone with any specialist knowledge of the subject and most specifically by the very researchers he 'cited' for it, who said he was deliberately distorting their results. This is also an accurate description of the portion of Nate Silver's book where he expresses his views on global warming.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Bengtsson's field is meteorology, not climatology. It's a bit like confusing your family doctor for a medical researcher.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:A brief look at his wiki page would show you he is very qualified to comment on climatology, not just tomorrows weather. Yes, I read his Wikipedia page and CV before I posted, but thanks. You'll note Wikipedia also specifically mentions his training is in meteorology. Yes, those are related fields. Yes, he also has interests in climatology and has attached his name to some climatology papers. However, his training is not in climatology. He is, in fact, not qualified to comment on climatology. Traditionally, climate denialists, creationists, and other peddlers of horseshit tend to overlook such things, even going so far as to tout the views of people in completely unrelated fields just because they've distinguished themselves in those fields, so I can see where you'd miss this important distinction.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:the Descartes prize bit sounds like it would be climate-related, but who really knows. It's a science prize. The paper Bengtsson contributed to which was one of the award winners that year was about climate. Lagotto posted:This is stupid. You can scrap half the contributors to the IPCC report following your logic. No, actually you can't. They worked with a large number of climatologists who agreed with their findings for the report.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:And yes I realize my stridency for objectivity is ironic in relation to the fact that alarmists generally hold very little regard for it. Right back at ya, cupcake.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:In that case, I'm pretty sure you're a shitposter who seems to get some kind of gratification from being the contrarian in every thread. You're both right. Can you take the slapfight to PMs?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
You know that guy who's really good at predicting winners in some sports and also happened to call the outcome of the last election (because it wasn't totally obvious)? It turns out that that expertise qualifies him to evaluate all scientific models of incredibly complex systems. There's a whole chapter in his book about forum thread quality, where he explains that all these so-called experts who've been studying thread quality for years have yet to produce a reliable model of it. I mean, come on, he even interviewed a thread qualitologist; nevermind that the scientist responded that he'd misunderstood everything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Bigup DJ posted:So I'm working up a really short blurb on the Carbon Bubble and I need some help! Basically I'm rendering this article from Rolling Stone down to ~150 words, and I'm wondering if any of the figures here have changed significantly in the last 5 years: Well, those figures blithely ignore that we're going to get 2°C of warming pretty much regardless of what we do now. The trick will be taking sufficient action for it not to become 4-10°.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Has a predictable range of inaccuracy been established? If so, the obvious question would be if the RSS data range would include a portion that jives with the other studies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 19:48
|
|