Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Syt on November 17, 2015, 05:50:30 AM

Title: Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 17, 2015, 05:50:30 AM
It appears we don't have a climate change megathread yet, so here is one.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/congressman-continues-pressuring-noaa-for-scientists-e-mails/

QuoteCongressman continues pressuring NOAA for scientists' e-mails

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) remains in the crosshairs of Congressman Lamar Smith, who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The issue is that Rep. Smith did not like the most recent update to NOAA's global surface temperature dataset, because it resulted in a larger warming trend since 1998—a time period that those who reject the conclusions of climate science are fond of claiming has seen no warming.

When last we checked in, the American Meteorological Society was weighing in with concern about Rep. Smith's subpoena seeking internal communications of NOAA scientists about this update. And Smith was asserting that it was done for political, rather than scientific reasons.

Updates like this one, which add in data or revise corrections for non-climatic factors like differences between measurement techniques, are common. And, after the changes, NOAA's dataset looks about the same as all the others. Although the data and methods he requested are publicly available, and NOAA scientists have provided explanations regarding the latest update, Rep. Smith wants to comb through their e-mails in order to uncover the political influence he assumes must exist.

NOAA has taken the position, as other scientific organizations have in the past, that deliberative communications between scientists should be protected from fishing expeditions, and has so far refused to comply.

After NOAA refused, Rep. Smith sent a letter reiterating the demand and making a few additional requests, including that four individuals from NOAA—two scientists, NOAA Chief of Staff Renee Stone, and Communications Director Ciaran Clayton—appear for closed-door interviews before the full House Committee. An aide for the committee told Ars that the transcripts of such interviews are generally not released and would not be released in this case. The rules also dictate that the committee members of one party cannot release transcripts without the permission of the other party. Whatever questions Rep. Smith wants to ask about the transparency of NOAA science will remain confidential.

But the public battle is continuing. On Friday, Rep. Smith sent a letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker asking her to direct NOAA to comply with his subpoena for internal communications. The letter states that "Congressional oversight need not, indeed should not, begin only when evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or other wrongdoing is unveiled."

The letter also complains that NOAA has apparently not yet scheduled the interviews with the two non-scientists and emphasizes that "the Committee's request for information and communications includes not just NOAA scientists but also NOAA policy and political staff." It adds that "NOAA's response appears to be targeted at manipulating the Committee's requests to lend support to the false narrative being promoted by outside organizations that the Committee is attempting to target and intimidate scientists."

As an example, Rep. Smith seems peeved that NOAA put out a press release about the study published in Science describing the update (which we covered). The letter continues, "NOAA also used Twitter to spread the news about the Karl study, tweeting 'NOAA study refutes notion of 'hiatus' in rate of #globalwarming in recent yrs.' This type of public relations effort seems better suited to an advertising campaign than a federal agency's sober report on the findings of a publicly-funded study."

NOAA routinely produces press releases for reports or newly published studies, and its Twitter account exists primarily to share links to those releases.


On the study mentioned in the penultimate paragraph:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/updated-noaa-temperature-record-shows-little-global-warming-slowdown/

QuoteUpdated NOAA temperature record shows little global warming slowdown

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.arstechnica.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2Fnoaa_karl_etal-640x486.jpg&hash=f6fba7f990edcf34b8f79fabc7993bab6703754c)

Creating and maintaining a record of surface temperatures around the world isn't as easy as it sounds, even if you rightly don't think that sounds easy. Lots of work goes into combining different kinds of measurements in the most accurate way possible. When new studies provide slightly better accounting for some of the complications involved, the records need to get updated.

An update to the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's temperature record is out this week, and the researchers behind it say it has an impact on discussions about the slower rise of global average surface temperatures in recent years. That is, it doesn't look much slower.

In this case, the update was spurred by two efforts. The first was simply a new database of weather stations on land that more than doubles the number available by folding in many smaller collections. The second was research into sources of sea surface temperature measurements. A large number of buoys are now dedicated to making these measurements, but commercial ships have also been a major source of data. Those ships haven't always used the same methods, though, so researchers have to be careful to account for differences between the data those methods produce.

For a long time, the standard method was to pull up a bucket of water and drop a thermometer in it. But over time—and especially around World War II—this was increasingly abandoned for measurements made of water in the engine room intake pipe. Intake pipes give you a slightly warmer temperature than the buckets, and so a correction has to be applied to make the two comparable.

Scientists hadn't used those corrections for data after World War II, but recent research discovered that the bucket method didn't completely go away. As a result, the sea surface temperature database now includes a correction to deal with this up to the present day. This makes a non-trivial difference.

The researchers also developed an improved correction for systematic differences between buoy measurements and ship measurements by examining measurements made by ships while they were near buoys. The buoy measurements averaged 0.12 degrees Celsius cooler, necessitating an adjustment, but the measurements are also higher quality and come with a smaller margin of error.

Because buoys are becoming more prevalent, the effects of these adjustments were stronger in recent years, bringing average temperatures up a tick compared to years previous.

Incorporating these changes results in small shifts in the global average surface temperature estimates. Some years moved upward a bit; some years moved downward. The change over the entire record, which extends back to 1880, is miniscule. But over short time periods, this wiggling can alter trends a bit.

This paper focuses on the period after the anomalously warm El Niño year of 1998, a starting point that has inspired some politicians to claim that the Earth hasn't warmed since. That already wasn't true, but the updated numbers make that even more obvious. In the previous version of the dataset, the average trend from 1998 to 2014 was 0.059±0.063 degrees Celsius warming per decade. Now, however, it is 0.106±0.058 degrees Celsius per decade.

(Of course, given that 1998 was warmer than surrounding years, that start date gives you the smallest trend. The trend over 2000 to 2014, for example, increases to 0.116 degrees Celsius per decade. Such is the danger of cherry-picking endpoints over short periods.)

Specifically, the paper revisits a statement from the most recent IPCC report, which was first published in 2013. The report compared the most recent trend to the trend going back to 1950, noting that the trend between 1998 and 2012 was half to one-third the trend between 1951 and 2012. That statement was based on the old NOAA numbers, which yielded trends of 0.039 degrees Celsius per decade and 0.117 degrees Celsius per decade, respectively. Using the updated numbers, that gap closes considerably: 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade (1998-2012) compared to 0.129 degrees Celsius per decade (1951-2012).

As a result, the researchers write that the IPCC's description of a much slower trend after 1998 is "no longer valid." For example, the new 2000 to 2014 trend is actually very slightly greater than the 1950 to 1999 trend.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.arstechnica.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2Fnoaa_temp_update1-640x275.png&hash=b07440f378dd3b007603c8403c8c6b60ddd78467)

Of course, NOAA isn't the only game in town, and a couple of other datasets—like NASA's—estimated higher temperatures for the last few years. We covered a 2013 analysis that used satellite data to fill in around the sparse weather stations in the Arctic, calculating even warmer global averages than NASA. NOAA's Huai-Min Zhang told Ars that the 2000 to 2014 trend in their updated dataset is comparable to that analysis, making it a little steeper than NASA's.

However, NASA uses the same land station and sea surface temperature databases as NOAA—when they incorporate these updates (which NASA's Reto Ruedy told Ars will eventually happen after careful testing), the NASA record will likely experience similar shifts. That would probably move NASA's numbers for recent years back on top. (The two groups handle the sparse sampling of the Arctic differently, and NASA's method of filling in between stations rather than leaving out the blanks gives the rapidly warming Arctic a little more weight in the global average.)

Got all that? Basically, it seems that the recent slowdown in surface warming has been exaggerated by our imperfect records. But while the researchers write that "newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from [NOAA] do not support the notion of a global warming 'hiatus,'" we also know that ocean patterns have held down surface temperatures in recent years. And we know that we have to account for those ocean patterns, as well as solar and volcanic activity, in order to bring recent temperatures up to the average trend of climate model projections.

Of course, there will be predictable accusations of "fudging data" made by those who invariably reject the results of climate science. For that reason, it's worth remembering that the net result of all the adjustments climate scientists make to these records is less warming over the last century.

Getting this exactly right isn't easy, and scientists have to cross every "t" they can find to produce accurate estimates of the fever Earth's climate system is running. If you're curious enough about the details, t-crossing can be pretty interesting—but if you take a few steps back, the big picture will look nearly the same. And yes, the big picture shows that the Earth didn't miraculously stop warming in 1998.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:28:38 AM
What kind of idiot do you have to be to put Lamar Smith in charge of a House Committee? Man you people never learn about Texas politicians.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on November 17, 2015, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:28:38 AM
What kind of idiot do you have to be to put Lamar Smith in charge of a House Committee? Man you people never learn about Texas politicians.

Are politicians ignorant of some Texas politicians' wilfully ignorance?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 06:14:52 PM
Since the actual measurements of global temperature didn't show any actual warming the climate fraudsters had to "adjust" the data to comport with their climate models.  Now that people are wondering how the fuck they came up with this very convenient adjustment they are clamming up and refusing to release the process that led to this conclusion, even though they are legally obligated to do so since this is publicly funded.

Well, the actually measured change of temperature is shown below:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthobservatory.nasa.gov%2FFeatures%2FGlobalWarming%2Fimages%2Fmsu_1978-2010.png&hash=b1d0aea8385d0ecd9bdc41c1a593ee7cc1d1132f)

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 06:27:28 PM
The OP article claims the data and methodology are publicly available.  Presumably when you say "process" you are referring to something.

Also not sure the graph you provided proves unadjusted temperatures are not rising.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 06:29:29 PM
Is that the Boston Marathon course elevation profile? Looks brutal.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 06:27:28 PM
The OP article claims the data and methodology are publicly available.  Presumably when you say "process" you are referring to something.

Also not sure the graph you provided proves unadjusted temperatures are not rising.

The problem is that they cherry pick their data (in this case ocean buoys) and make some very specific adjustments to bring it in line with their alarmist claims while ignoring all data that contradicts it.  Why don't satellite weather data, by far the most complete and accurate measurement of global climate since 1977 show any global warming.

In the scientific method you establish a theory and then set out to disprove it.  Only if you cannot disprove it have you proven your theory. Climate change "scientists" do not use the scientific method, routinely ignore facts and cherry pick data (or outright Doctor it) to reach their conclusion.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 06:50:43 PM
Source?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
The problem is that they cherry pick their data (in this case ocean buoys) and make some very specific adjustments to bring it in line with their alarmist claims while ignoring all data that contradicts it.  Why don't satellite weather data, by far the most complete and accurate measurement of global climate since 1977 show any global warming.

Have you read their publicly available methodology and come to these conclusions yourself?

I have not, nor do I have the scientific expertise to evaluate it, and can't refute anything you say (or anything the other side says) on the merits, though I do understand the argument for adjusting observed temperatures to account for things like urban heat islands.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 07:10:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 06:39:33 PM
The problem is that they cherry pick their data (in this case ocean buoys) and make some very specific adjustments to bring it in line with their alarmist claims while ignoring all data that contradicts it.  Why don't satellite weather data, by far the most complete and accurate measurement of global climate since 1977 show any global warming.

Have you read their publicly available methodology and come to these conclusions yourself?

I have not, nor do I have the scientific expertise to evaluate it, and can't refute anything you say (or anything the other side says) on the merits, though I do understand the argument for adjusting observed temperatures to account for things like urban heat islands.

Yes I have, they've adjusted water temperatures to fit their models based on differences from ship vs buoy measurements, which doesn't explain the lack of global warming in the satellite data.  Particularly since their models had predicted higher temperature growth in the troposphere vs ground level.  It is again an effort to fit the data to their model, not consistent with the scientific method.  Every year it is the same circus as they are proven wrong over and over again and continuously have to make "adjustments" to the data to fit it into their narrative.  It's like jehovah witness trying to scientifically explain away they dinosaurs carbon dating.

Starting with your conclusion and then cherry pick your data is not scientific, hence, they aren't engaged in since but anti-science.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 07:17:53 PM
Are you familiar with Dunning-Kruger effect?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 07:20:54 PM
The basic problem as I see it Hans, is that you are asking us to believe that tens of thousands of scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to mislead the public (for what? their salaries? for laughs?) and that you and a handful of brave souls, most or all of whom appear to share the same ideological space on the right end of the spectrum, are the only ones willing to tell the truth.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on November 17, 2015, 08:01:41 PM
I have zero expertise to challenge Han's graphs, or the environmentalists' graphs.  So it comes down to who to trust.  The way I see it is that there seems no practical gain for those who are screaming that temperatures are rising. 

Plus I can feel it too.  It is November in Hong Kong, but I still feel it is like late summer here.  It wasn't like that when I was a kid. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 07:20:54 PM
The basic problem as I see it Hans, is that you are asking us to believe that tens of thousands of scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to mislead the public (for what? their salaries? for laughs?) and that you and a handful of brave souls, most or all of whom appear to share the same ideological space on the right end of the spectrum, are the only ones willing to tell the truth.

More like hundreds of scientists, who have a very vested interest in advocating for this, to the tune of billions of dollars.  And the same thing happened with the eugenics movement a hundred years ago, even their thuggish methodology is identical.

Climate science has been completely politicized with little to no actual science taking taking place.  Over the last 20 years the field has been hijacked by political activists to the degree that there are hardly any scientists left in the field.

The reality is that we know relatively little about how the climate actually works, which is why real scientists in the field mostly roll their eyes when these hacks make these declarative statements; however, they also know to shut up to not be subject to a witch hunt.

See, I don't have much faith in declarative statements by much of the scientific recourse that tries to tell us how we should live, because so much of it is bullshit.  Just look at the various nutrition guidance a developed over the last 50 years, most of which have been utter bunk.  I love that they're now suddenly saying that whole milk might be healthier than low fat milk.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 17, 2015, 08:01:41 PM
I have zero expertise to challenge Han's graphs, or the environmentalists' graphs.  So it comes down to who to trust.  The way I see it is that there seems no practical gain for those who are screaming that temperatures are rising. 

Plus I can feel it too.  It is November in Hong Kong, but I still feel it is like late summer here.  It wasn't like that when I was a kid.

That graph is from NASA and contains the raw satellite data, unaltered, unlike the NOAA data set.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
More like hundreds of scientists, who have a very vested interest in advocating for this, to the tune of billions of dollars.

How do these hundreds of scientists have a vested interest in climate change, to the tune of billions of dollars?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on November 17, 2015, 08:05:14 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:03:35 PM


That graph is from NASA and contains the raw satellite data, unaltered, unlike the NOAA data set.

I don't doubt this, but I have handled enough data and drawn enough graphs myself to know that, very often, it is misleading to present the raw data without appropriate adjustments. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 08:09:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
More like hundreds of scientists, who have a very vested interest in advocating for this, to the tune of billions of dollars.

How do these hundreds of scientists have a vested interest in climate change, to the tune of billions of dollars?

I think he's talking about grant money, which they would get away, because governments have a vested interest in knowing about the weather.  Presumably the guys working in the private sector who are tasked with debunking this global conspiracy don't have a vested interest.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on November 17, 2015, 08:37:07 PM
I am well aware that scientists are very often wrong.  I don't preclude the possibility that, people hundreds of years from now may look back and think the global warming thing is wrong.  Doctors once told me that germs can't survive in the stomach.  A few years later they told me that all my problems could be solved by killing the germs there. 

Despite this, I still think we should err on the side of caution by believing that global warming is happening.  There is more than enough evidence to suggest that it is true, and the consqeuences are dire.  Plus, even if global warming doesn't exist, burning coal has enough negative health effects that it warrants regulation. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 09:15:05 PM
What kind of doctors were these Mono?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on November 17, 2015, 09:25:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 09:15:05 PM
What kind of doctors were these Mono?

I'd like to know too  :mad:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 10:34:05 PM
Anyway, climate deniers have a limited point.  Science (as we know it), is never in a finished state.  Things do get over turned and caution should be taken when acting on scientific facts.  However, it only goes so far.  You don't put off appendectomy (I had to look up how to spell this word), hoping there is a revolution in medicine.  Some times you must act, even with imperfect information.  Honestly, I don't think there is much of a chance of us preventing major climatic changes.  We will just have to live with the effects and hopefully mitigate the worst of them.

Han's conspiracy theories are of course bonkers.  When he tells us he came to these conclusions himself he reminds of those all those kooks who attempt to explain how a perpetual motion machine works to physics professors.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 08:35:33 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
Over the last 20 years the field has been hijacked by political activists to the degree that there are hardly any scientists left in the field.

Do you get paid to spread this kind of propaganda or is it something you do on your own time?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Liep on November 18, 2015, 08:45:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
More like hundreds of scientists, who have a very vested interest in advocating for this, to the tune of billions of dollars.

How do these hundreds of scientists have a vested interest in climate change, to the tune of billions of dollars?

I'm pretty sure global warming has kick started a billion dollar industry, but the climate scientists aren't seeing any of that.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 08:35:33 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
Over the last 20 years the field has been hijacked by political activists to the degree that there are hardly any scientists left in the field.

Do you get paid to spread this kind of propaganda or is it something you do on your own time?

He has in the past.  He used to work in Psyops.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: MadImmortalMan on November 18, 2015, 07:48:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 10:34:05 PM
Anyway, climate deniers have a limited point.  Science (as we know it), is never in a finished state.  Things do get over turned and caution should be taken when acting on scientific facts.

That the temperature graphs only go back to the 1880s is a weakness. Every time I see that data I cringe from that. It's either use it and be vulnerable to the ridicule or hire Marty McFly to go back in time and take measurements in geological timeframes.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 07:58:10 PM
I think there are ones that go back further then that.  Globally the climate has gotten cooler over the last several million years.  This is because the carbon in the atmosphere is slowly being fixed into the soil and fossilized.  Most carbon just goes back into  the cycle, but some of it in things like peat bogs stay in the soil.  Eventually it become things like oil and coal.  When we burn coal that carbon that had been stuck in the ground since the days dinosaurs is released bringing back a prehistoric type climate.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on November 19, 2015, 10:46:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 09:15:05 PM
What kind of doctors were these Mono?
Chinese doctors.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 18, 2015, 07:48:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 10:34:05 PM
Anyway, climate deniers have a limited point.  Science (as we know it), is never in a finished state.  Things do get over turned and caution should be taken when acting on scientific facts.

That the temperature graphs only go back to the 1880s is a weakness. Every time I see that data I cringe from that. It's either use it and be vulnerable to the ridicule or hire Marty McFly to go back in time and take measurements in geological timeframes.
they have temp graphs that go further than that, but these are reconstructed climate data, hence why they are not often included.  they are subject to complex mathematical models instead of recorded measures.  Complex mathematical models can sometimes be proven wrong, due to a simple (all things being relative) error somewhere, and it did happen in the past that data had to be revised, just like it is now.  And the fluctuations over 4 billion years aren't that practical to analyse current policies.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on November 19, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
Stockholm has temperature data from 1756 onwards.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2015, 11:54:01 AM
I think it's possible that climate scientists engage in publishing stuff that is then presented with hyperbole that overstates their findings, but I've never had the energy to dig really deep into climate science. I'll admit that I'm too lazy to do so, and that when I'm asked to choose between a large number of real scientists and far right Republicans and people funded by the fossil fuel industry I have an intrinsic bias toward just accepting what the real scientists say.

The way I see it even if, somehow we are totally wrong about climate change, fossil fuel emissions cause tons of bad things for the environment and public health, both in the burning and extraction of them. So if we find out in 2050 "eh, some mechanism we didn't understand means we didn't really need to phase out fossil fuels", I'd be cool with that anyway. Renewables give us more energy independence (same for nuclear), even though I do know we have significant fossil fuel reserves and shale reserves that have never been tapped, and don't cause all the environmental health problems.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on November 19, 2015, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2015, 11:54:01 AM
I think it's possible that climate scientists engage in publishing stuff that is then presented with hyperbole that overstates their findings,
To be fair, this happens to all science.  Remember the article a few weeks ago about an alien structure in far away solar system?  The scientists who made the report never mentionned "aliens" in their paper.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:15:17 PM
The way I see it, even if fossil fuels are only moderatly damaging, they are still finite.

They are going to run out eventually, and then we will have to come up with something else.

Why not just work on that now?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:15:17 PM
Why not just work on that now?

Pretty sure we are.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on November 22, 2015, 11:20:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:15:17 PM
Why not just work on that now?

Pretty sure we are.
oil subsidies + low oil prices discourage research.  These technologies would not be commercially viable in current circumstances.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Hamilcar on November 22, 2015, 02:48:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:15:17 PM
The way I see it, even if fossil fuels are only moderatly damaging, they are still finite.

They are going to run out eventually, and then we will have to come up with something else.

Why not just work on that now?

If we burn all the (known) remaining carbon, we're super-fucked.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on November 22, 2015, 02:58:44 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 22, 2015, 02:48:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:15:17 PM
The way I see it, even if fossil fuels are only moderatly damaging, they are still finite.

They are going to run out eventually, and then we will have to come up with something else.

Why not just work on that now?

If we burn all the (known) remaining carbon, we're super-fucked.

Well yes; even if 'we' end up burning a small percentage of the relatively easy to get to hydrocarbons, say 10-30% we're still going to be in a lot of trouble, well some of us* are that is.


*assuming you've some interest in a diverse range of humanity, if you're only concerned with yourself, your family and your neighbourhood you should be 'fine'.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:01:04 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 22, 2015, 02:48:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:15:17 PM
The way I see it, even if fossil fuels are only moderatly damaging, they are still finite.

They are going to run out eventually, and then we will have to come up with something else.

Why not just work on that now?

If we burn all the (known) remaining carbon, we're super-fucked.

Might be good for giant ants though.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 25, 2015, 07:06:13 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34915448

Quote2015 likely to be warmest on record says UN weather body

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F660%2Fcpsprodpb%2F53F7%2Fproduction%2F_86859412_86859411.jpg&hash=0d13678e25045ea3cfd66f0fbb27a5403f0e5d51)

Global average temperatures in 2015 are likely to be the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

Data until the end of October showed this year's temperatures running "well above" any previous 12 month period.

The researchers say the five year period from 2011 to 2015 was also the warmest on record.

The rise, they state, was due to a combination of a strong El Nino and human-induced global warming.

The WMO said their preliminary estimate, based on data from January to October, showed that the global average surface temperature for 2015 was 0.73 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average.

Their scientists also found that global temperatures were approximately 1 degree C above the 1880-1899 period, mirroring a recent finding by the UK Met Office.

'Bad news'

The record-breaking five year period from 2011 to 2015 was 0.57C above the average for 1961-1990.

The WMO said that levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached new highs. In the northern hemisphere, the spring of 2015 saw the three-month global average concentration of CO2 cross the 400 parts per million barrier for the first time.

"The state of the global climate in 2015 will make history for a number of reasons," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

"2015 is likely to be the hottest year on record, with ocean surface temperatures at the highest level since measurements began. It is probable that the 1C threshold will be crossed.

"This is all bad news for the planet."

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef-1.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fcpsprodpb%2F17359%2Fproduction%2F_86856059_86856058.jpg&hash=a97e5d86b9b04f427aded706d4f20a5e8612ed99)

Other researchers agreed that the latest data from the WMO reinforces the view that human emissions of carbon dioxide, from burning fossil fuels, are continuing to heat the Earth beyond natural variability.

"The fingerprint of a warming planet is becoming clearer in nearly every corner of the world," said Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading.

"Moreover, 2015 is not a one-off, as indicated by the last five years' average also being the warmest on record.

"In the UK, our variable weather means that 2015 will not set any records for warmth, but the longer view shows UK temperatures have risen about 20% faster than the global average. We can expect this faster rate to continue in future."

As well as warming the land, much of the heat has gone into the oceans. The WMO said the waters have been absorbing more than 90% of the energy that has accumulated in the climate system from human emissions of greenhouse gases. The temperature of the tropical Pacific was more than 1C above average, consistent with a strong El Nino.

The WMO said this weather phenomenon has been a factor in pushing this year past previous records. El Nino has gained in strength over the past few months and has been rated as one of the three strongest since 1950.

The researchers said that the impact of an El Nino is typically felt more strongly in the second calendar year, meaning that 2016 is likely to be more strongly influenced by the event than 2015.

The record temperatures of 2015 were being felt in many different parts of the world. China recorded its warmest ever January to October period. For Africa, this year has been the second warmest on record.

Heat waves affected many parts of the world, with India seeing average maximum temperatures over 45C in some areas. There were also extremely hot periods in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere.

The WMO also argued that many of the extreme weather events in the past five years, especially those relating to higher temperatures, have had their probabilities substantially increased as a result of human-induced climate change.

The new findings are likely to feature prominently at COP21 in Paris next week, when global political leaders and negotiators will aim to secure a new global deal that would limit emissions of carbon dioxide.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 01, 2015, 10:57:55 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/30/us-climatechange-summit-china-smog-idUSKBN0TJ0DG20151130

QuoteSmog chokes Chinese, Indian capitals as climate talks begin

The capitals of the world's two most populous nations, China and India, were blanketed in hazardous, choking smog on Monday as climate change talks began in Paris, where leaders of both countries are among the participants.

China's capital Beijing maintained an "orange" pollution alert, the second-highest level, on Monday, closing highways, halting or suspending construction and prompting a warning to residents to stay indoors.

The choking pollution was caused by the "unfavourable" weather, the Ministry of Environmental Protection said on Sunday. Emissions in northern China soar over winter as urban heating systems are switched on and low wind speeds have meant that polluted air has not been dispersed.

In New Delhi, the U.S. embassy's monitoring station recorded an air quality index of 372, which puts air pollution levels well into "hazardous" territory. A thick smog blanketed the city and visibility was down to about 200 yards (metres).

Air quality in the city of 16 million is usually bad in winter, when coal fires are lit by the poor to ward off the cold. Traffic fumes, too, are trapped over the city by a temperature inversion and the lack of wind.

However, the government has not raised any alarm over the current air quality and no advisories have been issued to the public. Thirty thousand runners took part in a half marathon at the weekend, when pollution levels were just as high.

In Beijing, a city of 22.5 million, the air quality index in some parts of the city soared to 500, its highest possible level. At levels higher than 300, residents are encouraged to remain indoors, according to government guidelines.

The hazardous air underscores the challenge facing the government as it battles pollution caused by the coal-burning power industry and will raise questions about its ability to clean up its economy at the talks in Paris.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are both in Paris and both were scheduled to meet U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday to give momentum to the two-week negotiations.

"WHEN A CHILD IS BORN, WE PLANT A TREE"

Modi sought to highlight India's green credentials in an article for the Financial Times on Monday, writing: "The instinct of our culture is to take a sustainable path to development. When a child is born, we plant a tree."

But at Connaught Place, a city centre landmark in New Delhi, people chided the government for failing to minimise the risks to their health from air pollution.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on December 01, 2015, 11:02:17 AM
QuoteSmog chokes Chinese, Indian capitals as climate talks begin

Some guy on the street were inviting people to a climate march in London. Maybe they can force out a few percentage change in emission rules in the UK. THAT will solve this issue, do not worry!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Siege on December 01, 2015, 11:24:55 AM
Smog is not produced by CO2, which is colorless and odorless.

The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

And Berkut, big oil is donating millions to climate alarmists research, and zero, nothing, to climate realists.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 11:26:57 AM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 11:24:55 AM
The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

Yes...and why did those climate changes occur I wonder?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on December 01, 2015, 11:28:56 AM
I hate how once again we've started using "Save the planet" slogan.

The planet will be fine! It doesn't give a shit wether we fuck our climate up or not.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 11:32:05 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 01, 2015, 11:28:56 AM
I hate how once again we've started using "Save the planet" slogan.

The planet will be fine! It doesn't give a shit wether we fuck our climate up or not.

Right? At one point the entire planet was buried in ice. The planet didn't give two fucks.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on December 01, 2015, 11:44:02 AM
Indeed I think it would help driving the point home more if it was "save humanity" or actually to be more correct "save current human civilisation from possible collapse" Then again that slogan needs more understanding.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Siege on December 01, 2015, 01:17:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 11:26:57 AM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 11:24:55 AM
The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

Yes...and why did those climate changes occur I wonder?
Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 02:44:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 01:17:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 11:26:57 AM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 11:24:55 AM
The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

Yes...and why did those climate changes occur I wonder?
Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.

How do you know this?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 01:17:16 PM
Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.


Well duh there were no humans around back then. But how to do you account for volcanic activity being such an important part of climate change in the past if it is solar activity?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on December 01, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 02:44:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 01:17:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 11:26:57 AM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 11:24:55 AM
The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

Yes...and why did those climate changes occur I wonder?
Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.

How do you know this?

Shush Raz, he's read the talking points; maybe some were on bumper stickers too.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2015, 04:11:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 01, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
Shush Raz, he's read the talking points; maybe some were on bumper stickers too.

If you ask him to explain how he came to his conclusions, that opens the possibility for a critique of evidence and logic which could possibly result in Siege changing his mind.

If you just take a piss on him and his opinions at the beginning, that possibility diminishes.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 04:21:38 PM
Well we know the climate was different millions of years ago.  There lived creatures hundreds of millions of years ago that could not live today, like dragon flies the size of your arm or nine foot millipedes.  For those to exist you need a much higher level of oxygen level in the atmosphere for something without lungs to breathe.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on December 03, 2015, 12:57:26 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR3PdklWcAA3eYf.png)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on December 03, 2015, 01:24:36 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 25, 2015, 07:06:13 AM

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef-1.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fcpsprodpb%2F17359%2Fproduction%2F_86856059_86856058.jpg&hash=a97e5d86b9b04f427aded706d4f20a5e8612ed99)


Looks like the death of Elvis was the turning point.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 03, 2015, 02:29:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.

I guess it's saying we should be scared of ISIS instead of global warming.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on December 03, 2015, 08:31:49 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2015, 02:29:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.

I guess it's saying we should be scared of ISIS instead of global warming.  :hmm:

Maybe more along the lines of blaming the victim or Obama keeping America defenceless as he pursues his own agenda etc.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on December 03, 2015, 11:21:52 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 03, 2015, 02:29:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.

I guess it's saying we should be scared of ISIS instead of global warming.  :hmm:

Yeah, I think it is an example of simplistic idiots trying to argue that the US can only deal with a single problem at any time.  I.E. is is standard projection by morons.  I think morons find it funny.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 03, 2015, 11:23:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.

Presumably we are all on the verge of being killed on Muslims.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 03, 2015, 11:46:34 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2015, 06:14:52 PM
Since the actual measurements of global temperature didn't show any actual warming the climate fraudsters had to "adjust" the data to comport with their climate models.  Now that people are wondering how the fuck they came up with this very convenient adjustment they are clamming up and refusing to release the process that led to this conclusion, even though they are legally obligated to do so since this is publicly funded.

Well, the actually measured change of temperature is shown below:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthobservatory.nasa.gov%2FFeatures%2FGlobalWarming%2Fimages%2Fmsu_1978-2010.png&hash=b1d0aea8385d0ecd9bdc41c1a593ee7cc1d1132f)

I can't believe I missed this doozy before.
Hans presumably pulled this from this fact backgrounder on the NASA page:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page1.php

As the backgrounder explains, global warming from an increase in solar energy output would have the effect of increasing tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures alike (along with the surface).  A greenhouse effect, on the other hand, should increase tropospheric and surface temperature, but *decrease* stratospheric temperatures.  The NASA graph therefore shows that the observed surface warming effect is consistent with warming being driven by greenhouse gas effects and not from a temporary increase in solar output.  (the fact that it is nice and cool up in the stratosphere is fun to know but not useful unless we are plan to live in B-52s).

Of course, the NASA data shows increases in surface temperature and the NASA site explains the evidence for warming.

It doesn't surprise to see the likes of Hans and Lamar Smith accuse scientists of fudging data for political purposes; it reflects how they think, and it is exactly what Hans is doing right here in this thread.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on December 03, 2015, 01:00:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2015, 11:23:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.

Presumably we are all on the verge of being killed on Muslims.

I mean, if we all book a flight to Iraq, hop the border to Syria, and sign on with one of the various militias, our odds are pretty high!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on December 03, 2015, 04:06:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2015, 11:23:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.

Presumably we are all on the verge of being killed on Muslims.

It's a piece of wood.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 03, 2015, 04:56:35 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 03, 2015, 01:00:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2015, 11:23:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2015, 01:17:37 AM
I don't get it.

Presumably we are all on the verge of being killed on Muslims.

I mean, if we all book a flight to Iraq, hop the border to Syria, and sign on with one of the various militias, our odds are pretty high!

I look at the picture a little more and it could be a really fat ninja.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 04, 2015, 08:47:47 AM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/

QuoteWhy Climate Skeptics Are Wrong

Or why climate skeptics are wrong

At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists—or even just one—supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did this happen?

An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called a "consilience of inductions." For a theory to be accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction—or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction. "Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together," he wrote in his 1840 book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, "belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains." Call it a "convergence of evidence."

Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?

It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.

A 2013 study published in Environmental Research Letters by Australian researchers John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined 11,944 climate paper abstracts published from 1991 to 2011. Of those papers that stated a position on AGW, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is real and caused by humans. What about the remaining 3 percent or so of studies? What if they're right? In a 2015 paper published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined the 3 percent and found "a number of methodological flaws and a pattern of common mistakes." That is, instead of the 3 percent of papers converging to a better explanation than that provided by the 97 percent, they failed to converge to anything.

"There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming," Nuccitelli concluded in an August 25, 2015, commentary in the Guardian. "Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics." For example, one skeptical paper attributed climate change to lunar or solar cycles, but to make these models work for the 4,000-year period that the authors considered, they had to throw out 6,000 years' worth of earlier data.

Such practices are deceptive and fail to further climate science when exposed by skeptical scrutiny, an integral element to the scientific process.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 09:48:58 AM
Quote(Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.)

It isn't a problem for either group, it is a feature.

And I suspect a large overlap in those groups in any case.

NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING AT ALL WRONG WITH RELIGION! IT IS FINE!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 09:48:58 AM
NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING AT ALL WRONG WITH RELIGION! IT IS FINE!

Religion is fine at being religion. It sucks at being science though.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 09:48:58 AM
NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING AT ALL WRONG WITH RELIGION! IT IS FINE!

Religion is fine at being religion. It sucks at being science though.

Sadly, for many there isn't any difference between the two.

But to be honest, I actually think the relatively recent "reasoned" retreat of religion from material science is in fact something of a cop out - a way to hang onto the framework of religion after science has thoroughly debunked it.

The bible does in fact make very clear claims about the physical world, for example. Claims which are simply false, and we know they are false on the basis of modern science which was not available to the writers. In a rather perverse way, the Young Earth Creationists are in some fashion a more "honest" Christian, in that they recognize that you can't jut pretend like the bible doesn't say what it rather obvious does say simply because it is patently untrue.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 10:41:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:32:00 AM

But to be honest, I actually think the relatively recent "reasoned" retreat of religion from material science is in fact something of a cop out - a way to hang onto the framework of religion after science has thoroughly debunked it.

I don't. I do not think it was ever intended to be about material science.

QuoteThe bible does in fact make very clear claims about the physical world, for example. Claims which are simply false, and we know they are false on the basis of modern science which was not available to the writers. In a rather perverse way, the Young Earth Creationists are in some fashion a more "honest" Christian, in that they recognize that you can't jut pretend like the bible doesn't say what it rather obvious does say simply because it is patently untrue.

No it doesn't. And besides the Bible makes many obviously false historical claims that were known at the time to be false. They get the name of the King of Babylon wrong, they get the number of Kings of Persia wrong, and so forth and all this was known. St. Augustine said anybody who thinks the earth was literally created in a week is an idiot because that was not the point. And frankly I could go on and on and on here. So I disagree that modern science was necessary for this to be obvious and that taking the Bible as it was intended to be taken is some kind of new cop out.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 11:17:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 10:41:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:32:00 AM

But to be honest, I actually think the relatively recent "reasoned" retreat of religion from material science is in fact something of a cop out - a way to hang onto the framework of religion after science has thoroughly debunked it.

I don't. I do not think it was ever intended to be about material science.

QuoteThe bible does in fact make very clear claims about the physical world, for example. Claims which are simply false, and we know they are false on the basis of modern science which was not available to the writers. In a rather perverse way, the Young Earth Creationists are in some fashion a more "honest" Christian, in that they recognize that you can't jut pretend like the bible doesn't say what it rather obvious does say simply because it is patently untrue.

No it doesn't. And besides the Bible makes many obviously false historical claims that were known at the time to be false. They get the name of the King of Babylon wrong, they get the number of Kings of Persia wrong, and so forth and all this was known. St. Augustine said anybody who thinks the earth was literally created in a week is an idiot because that was not the point. And frankly I could go on and on and on here. So I disagree that modern science was necessary for this to be obvious and that taking the Bible as it was intended to be taken is some kind of new cop out.

By the time of St. Augustine, it was pretty obvious that you can't create worlds in a day. At the time Genesis was written, maybe not so much.

People still believe today that god covered the entire globe with a flood, for example. Did he or did he not? The bible says he did, and that was considered to be "true", and for those who were the original consumers, it probably was effectively true.

And if you believe in an omnipotent god, then in fact it isn't even unreasonable to believe that it is true. Why not? If you believe that any one single story in the bible of something happening that is physically beyond material science, then why is it ridiculous to believe that other "magic" things happen? indeed, it isn't even "magic" at that point, it is just the universe following the actual physical laws that define it - said laws including an omnipotent being capable of doing things like resurrecting his nominal "son" and turning water into wine or creating the world in seven days.

What do YOU believe Valmy? Does the bible describe even one single instance of anything happening that is beyond rational scientific understanding? Some actual, physical occurrence?

Did Jesus actually rise from the dead?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on December 04, 2015, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
In a rather perverse way, the Young Earth Creationists are in some fashion a more "honest" Christian, in that they recognize that you can't jut pretend like the bible doesn't say what it rather obvious does say simply because it is patently untrue.

:berkut:

He's gone full Viking.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:15:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2015, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
In a rather perverse way, the Young Earth Creationists are in some fashion a more "honest" Christian, in that they recognize that you can't jut pretend like the bible doesn't say what it rather obvious does say simply because it is patently untrue.

:berkut:

He's gone full Viking.


Nah, not really.

I think the YECs are a bit more consistent, but at the same time I accept Valmy's more nuanced position that such consistency isn't really that important - there is value to be extracted regardless, and presumably he feels it is a worthwhile endeavor to extract that value even if it involves a bit of biblical cherry picking.

I would like to hear his answer to my question though...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2015, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:32:00 AM
In a rather perverse way, the Young Earth Creationists are in some fashion a more "honest" Christian, in that they recognize that you can't jut pretend like the bible doesn't say what it rather obvious does say simply because it is patently untrue.

:berkut:

He's gone full Viking.

Sad isn't it?  It's the path of all lazy Atheists.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on December 04, 2015, 01:28:50 PM
How magic is it if it took him three fucking days?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 11:17:14 AM
By the time of St. Augustine, it was pretty obvious that you can't create worlds in a day. At the time Genesis was written, maybe not so much.

It was a common motif in that culture that is for sure. Hard to get into the heads of people that ancient. But I was talking about Christianity specifically. I think when it was adopted everybody understood the nature of the Bible. It would just make no sense to adopt it the way they did if they had a modern pseudo-scientific understanding of it like the YEC crowd.

QuotePeople still believe today that god covered the entire globe with a flood, for example. Did he or did he not? The bible says he did, and that was considered to be "true", and for those who were the original consumers, it probably was effectively true.

Again this was a common motif in that area. Everybody incorporated that story into their religion so the Bible had to put their own spin on it. And what the world meant to them is different, after all, Cyrus went around calling himself  King of the Universe. I don't think anybody took that to mean there were no people outside of his rule.

QuoteAnd if you believe in an omnipotent god, then in fact it isn't even unreasonable to believe that it is true. Why not? If you believe that any one single story in the bible of something happening that is physically beyond material science, then why is it ridiculous to believe that other "magic" things happen? indeed, it isn't even "magic" at that point, it is just the universe following the actual physical laws that define it - said laws including an omnipotent being capable of doing things like resurrecting his nominal "son" and turning water into wine or creating the world in seven days.

This is a materialist modern pseudo-scientific perspective that makes no sense if you plug it in to say...the Byzantine Empire. They still would take in taxes and drill their armies and plan strategy and do everything somebody who does not believe in God would do in order to win a battle. If they believed God's power was physically and materially real then they would just work their mojo and win. But they did both contradictory things and saw no contradiction in it, because that was their understanding of how things worked. But lots of ancient civilizations were like this.

To my modern mind I can easily understand this contradiction. In the "material" world there is no God. Period. I think ancient people grasped this but in a different way, they were always going on about how the material world was an illusion or separate.

QuoteWhat do YOU believe Valmy? Does the bible describe even one single instance of anything happening that is beyond rational scientific understanding? Some actual, physical occurrence?

I believe that nothing in the Bible happened like it says it did or if it did it is a coincidence that was not necessarily intended. The writers of the Bible did not really worry too much if they got the name of the King of Babylon right because that was not the point.

I mean even Herodotus couldn't help but turn his histories into morality plays without too much concern for stern accuracy and he WAS actually trying to do a historical study.

QuoteDid Jesus actually rise from the dead?

In a material scientific sense? Nope.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: lustindarkness on December 04, 2015, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 04, 2015, 01:28:50 PM
How magic is it if it took him three fucking days?

Fucking lag. <_<
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 01:42:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:15:34 PMNah, not really.

I think the YECs are a bit more consistent, but at the same time I accept Valmy's more nuanced position that such consistency isn't really that important - there is value to be extracted regardless, and presumably he feels it is a worthwhile endeavor to extract that value even if it involves a bit of biblical cherry picking.

I would like to hear his answer to my question though...

I disagree. The YECs are the kings of cherry picking. They have to. Their beliefs make no sense Biblically so they have to ignore whatever is inconvenient. Like Jewish Law. Jesus says you should obey the law in some places (and very stringently at that). Peter and Jesus' brother, the dudes who knew him personally, had that understanding. Yet other things Jesus is quoted saying indicate just the opposite in other places. So what to do...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:42:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
In a material scientific sense? Nope.

Interesting - I applaud you for your consistency.

I don't think you are qualified to really call yourself a "Christian" though. Certainly not under the standard definition of the term anyway, as someone who believes that Christ manifested on Earth and died and arose to heaven, etc., etc.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on December 04, 2015, 01:46:17 PM
Yeah, so I don't think I was wrong. Not if you are going to go all Viking and regulate who is and who is not a Christian. :lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2015, 01:46:17 PM
Yeah, so I don't think I was wrong. Not if you are going to go all Viking and regulate who is and who is not a Christian. :lol:

huh?

Words have meaning. "Christian" has meaning.

I am not "regulating" anything - I have no power to do so.

But if someone says they have some characteristic, and then proceeds to deny the very things that define that characteristic in my mind, then it hardly makes me some kind of radical to think that they don't really meet the definition as I understand it - and as I think most people understand it.

I think if you asked 100 Christians if they feel that a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that he came to the Earth, died, and was resurrected was a defining characteristic of what the word "Christian" actually means, 90 of them would agree that at the least that is a necessary condition for Christianity.

I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.

There is a wide range though in "taking it literally".

I went to a Lutheran school, for example. They were about as non-fundy as Christians come, and did not take the bible literally at all. I spent countless hours in bible study on what was and was not literal, and what the message was of various non-literal stories.

But they most certainly believed, and taught, that Jesus Christ was an actually person who actually existed and was actually born of a virgin and actually was the son of god and actually was executed and actually did in fact rise from the dead.

They are not "fundies" by any means, and I suspect represent the vast majority of Christian (including Catholic) thought on what actually happened in regards to Christ.

I think it is a small minority of people who call themselves Christians who would claim that Christ did not actually rise from the dead.

So no, I am not defining Christians as only those who take the bible literally. I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2015, 03:03:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 01:42:16 PM
I disagree. The YECs are the kings of cherry picking. They have to. Their beliefs make no sense Biblically so they have to ignore whatever is inconvenient. Like Jewish Law. Jesus says you should obey the law in some places (and very stringently at that). Peter and Jesus' brother, the dudes who knew him personally, had that understanding. Yet other things Jesus is quoted saying indicate just the opposite in other places. So what to do...

Which laws did he say to follow?  I've never heard of this.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 03:09:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.

There is a wide range though in "taking it literally".

I went to a Lutheran school, for example. They were about as non-fundy as Christians come, and did not take the bible literally at all. I spent countless hours in bible study on what was and was not literal, and what the message was of various non-literal stories.

But they most certainly believed, and taught, that Jesus Christ was an actually person who actually existed and was actually born of a virgin and actually was the son of god and actually was executed and actually did in fact rise from the dead.

They are not "fundies" by any means, and I suspect represent the vast majority of Christian (including Catholic) thought on what actually happened in regards to Christ.

I think it is a small minority of people who call themselves Christians who would claim that Christ did not actually rise from the dead.

So no, I am not defining Christians as only those who take the bible literally. I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

Sure, but the point you made earlier was that it was a cop out for Christianity to (I think you put it "back out of material science" or something like that) and you used the early earthers as an example of more honest Christians.  In fact the Vatican, for one, does not back away from the study of science and your assertion that early earthers are the honest ones really only applies the literal interpretation of the Bible is the only legitimate interpretation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 04, 2015, 03:21:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2015, 01:46:17 PM
Yeah, so I don't think I was wrong. Not if you are going to go all Viking and regulate who is and who is not a Christian. :lol:

Mitt Romney- not a Christian
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2015, 03:03:00 PM
Which laws did he say to follow?  I've never heard of this.

All of them.

Matthew 5:18

QuoteFor truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

And the writer of Matthew is really big on the Law.

As were James and Peter. Paul disagreed and this was a point of controversy but then he didn't actually know Jesus like the other two guys did he?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:42:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
In a material scientific sense? Nope.

Interesting - I applaud you for your consistency.

I don't think you are qualified to really call yourself a "Christian" though. Certainly not under the standard definition of the term anyway, as someone who believes that Christ manifested on Earth and died and arose to heaven, etc., etc.

Well the Fundies would certainly agree with you :lol:

But I naturally think that my views are correct and are true Christianity and that they are wrong. Because that is what being a Christian is all about.

I do think there is a long historical tradition of people with my views actually. But yeah I wouldn't be a Christian if I had to believe otherwise. I guess I could try to find another name but really what is the difference? I go to Church on Sunday and praise Jesus and pray to God. I donate money to the poor and all that. Seems like I am in the club to me (and naturally in the most true and best part of it :P )
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

*ahem* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

QuoteUnitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one entity, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself. They may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings and can be considered a savior, but all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine.

Hence I call myself a Unitarian, which is a kind of Christian.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 04:04:15 PM
Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 04:05:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 03:31:43 PM
But I naturally think that my views are correct and are true Christianity and that they are wrong. Because that is what being a Christian is all about.

What do two Protestants do when they meet?  They disagree and start their own churches.   
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on December 04, 2015, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

*ahem* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

QuoteUnitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one entity, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself. They may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings and can be considered a savior, but all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine.

Hence I call myself a Unitarian.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God <snip> And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

Pretty sure John was saying that Jesus was God here.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 04:04:15 PM
Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.

It is due to science and the enlightenment actually. They think you can apply the Bible like you can apply Newtons Laws.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:12:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 04, 2015, 04:08:29 PM
Pretty sure John was saying that Jesus was God here.

Sure. I and the father are one. But not in the literal sense.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 04:05:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 03:31:43 PM
But I naturally think that my views are correct and are true Christianity and that they are wrong. Because that is what being a Christian is all about.

What do two Protestants do when they meet?  They disagree and start their own churches.   

:thumbsup: :lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 04:25:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 04:04:15 PM
Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.

It is due to science and the enlightenment actually. They think you can apply the Bible like you can apply Newtons Laws.

It is sadly championed by ignorant rubes.  Some of those rubes are even Christians.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:17:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 03:09:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.

There is a wide range though in "taking it literally".

I went to a Lutheran school, for example. They were about as non-fundy as Christians come, and did not take the bible literally at all. I spent countless hours in bible study on what was and was not literal, and what the message was of various non-literal stories.

But they most certainly believed, and taught, that Jesus Christ was an actually person who actually existed and was actually born of a virgin and actually was the son of god and actually was executed and actually did in fact rise from the dead.

They are not "fundies" by any means, and I suspect represent the vast majority of Christian (including Catholic) thought on what actually happened in regards to Christ.

I think it is a small minority of people who call themselves Christians who would claim that Christ did not actually rise from the dead.

So no, I am not defining Christians as only those who take the bible literally. I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

Sure, but the point you made earlier was that it was a cop out for Christianity to (I think you put it "back out of material science" or something like that) and you used the early earthers as an example of more honest Christians.  In fact the Vatican, for one, does not back away from the study of science and your assertion that early earthers are the honest ones really only applies the literal interpretation of the Bible is the only legitimate interpretation.



Ahhh, ok, I see what you mean.

You are taking me too literally - my comment was not meant that seriously, or rather my comment seemed like I thought it was more meaningful than I really meant it. Or something like that.

In any case, I am trying to say that YECs are, in some ways, more consistent in that they simply take what the bible says at face value, and damn the consequences. I am not saying that is a good thing, or that they are "better" Christians, just more of a interesting sort of note on various religious groupings of belief.

I had a fellow officials who was a YEC. We had some interesting discussions on long trips to St. Lawrence.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:19:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 02:59:12 PM
I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.


*ahem* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism)


QuoteUnitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one entity, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself. They may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings and can be considered a savior, but all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine.


Hence I call myself a Unitarian, which is a kind of Christian.


Fair enough.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Ed Anger on December 04, 2015, 10:20:14 PM
Ugh, Unitarians.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on December 04, 2015, 10:22:41 PM
Guys, why is every other thread on the forum turning in to 'discussion' focused around religion.   <_<
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 10:23:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 04:04:15 PM
Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.

It is due to science and the enlightenment actually. They think you can apply the Bible like you can apply Newtons Laws.

OK, lets be clear here though.

Biblical literalism is NOT talking about people who believe that Christ really existed, really was divine, really did rise from the dead, and all this is supernatural.

The set of Christians are not "People who think like Valmy" and "Bible literalists".

Really, bring up biblical literalists is pretty much a red herring in regards to the discussion me and Valmy are having about his rather peculiar (compared to mainstream Christianity) religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 11:30:21 PM
Are you talking to me? :huh:  I would say that in the time of St. Augustine they had no more idea how the word formed then they did 700 years prior.  People really didn't have a good idea how old the Earth was until the 18th century.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 11:49:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2015, 10:20:14 PM
Ugh, Unitarians.

Hey! Some of our most mediocre one term Presidents have been Unitarians!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on December 05, 2015, 12:18:34 AM
Actually, I would say that much of the Biblical literalism dates back (at least) to the heresies of the High Middle Ages/Late Middle Ages.  The Protestant Reformation underlined much of the earlier heresies and gave it the stamp of widespread publishing, but the "back to the Bible" movement has been a force for quite a bit longer than the what was stated above.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 05, 2015, 10:11:44 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 05, 2015, 12:18:34 AM
Actually, I would say that much of the Biblical literalism dates back (at least) to the heresies of the High Middle Ages/Late Middle Ages.  The Protestant Reformation underlined much of the earlier heresies and gave it the stamp of widespread publishing, but the "back to the Bible" movement has been a force for quite a bit longer than the what was stated above.

I get what you are saying but I still do not think it is the same thing. After all the 'back to the bible' movement also created my sorta Christians as well.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Liep on December 06, 2015, 10:34:04 AM
Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 10:22:41 PM
Guys, why is every other thread on the forum turning in to 'discussion' focused around religion.   <_<

Because the threat of Viking intervention is no more. :(
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on December 06, 2015, 12:28:55 PM
Quote from: Liep on December 06, 2015, 10:34:04 AM
Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 10:22:41 PM
Guys, why is every other thread on the forum turning in to 'discussion' focused around religion.   <_<

Because the threat of Viking intervention is no more. :(

:D

Now I really do miss him.  :(
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on December 07, 2015, 08:24:21 AM
I thought this was a good article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Quote from: Washington Post
Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. So why won't the GOP?
To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil.

No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon's website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose.
Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor of The Post. He writes editorials for the newspaper and a biweekly column that appears on Mondays. He also contributes to the PostPartisan blog. View Archive

With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.

"A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement," Exxon says in a position paper titled "Engaging on climate change."

None of this is radical. Officials negotiating a climate agreement right now in Paris would take it as self-evident. Republican leaders in the 1980s and 1990s would have raised no objection.
Play Video2:13
The Paris climate talks, explained
Understand decades of climate change negotiations and what's at stake in Paris in two minutes. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

But to today's Republicans, ExxonMobil's moderate, self-evident views are akin to heresy. Donald Trump, the leading GOP presidential candidate, says, "I don't believe in climate change." Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) says, "Climate change is not science, it's religion." Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at the moment seems to acknowledge that climate change might be real but opposes any action to deal with it.

Well, you may say, Trump revels in his stupidities, and most of the presidential candidates are appealing to the rightmost wing of their primary electorate at the moment. What about the grownups in the party, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.)?

Glad you asked.

In an op-ed for The Post published as President Obama traveled to Paris for the opening of the climate talks, McConnell slammed Obama's policy for harming the middle class without measurably affecting climate change.

Does that mean, I asked the majority leader's press secretary, that he believes climate change is real, and are there policies he would favor to mitigate the risk?

The spokesman answered: "While the Leader has spoken often on energy and the President's policies, I don't believe he'll have anything new today. And as to the President's policies, the President says he's for 'all of the above.' He got that line from us. But as to his climate proposal and the Paris proposals, I think he's spoken clearly on that in his op-ed. I hope that helps."

I tried once more: "So as to whether he believes climate change is real, or would favor any policies to mitigate it, I should just say, declined to answer?"

I didn't hear back.

A genuine conservative, as Ronald Reagan's secretary of state George P. Shultz has written, would acknowledge uncertainties in climate science but look for rational, market-based policies to lessen the risk without slowing economic growth. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, as in a bill Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has introduced, fits the description precisely.

What then explains the know-nothingism of today's Republicans? Some of them see scientists as part of a left-wing cabal; many of them doubt government's ability to do anything, let alone something as big as redirecting the economy's energy use. Almost all of them, along with quite a few Democrats, would rather not tell voters that energy prices need to rise for the sake of the environment.

Their donors in the oil and gas industry encourage their prejudices. Three years ago, Grover Norquist, the Republicans' anti-tax enforcer, said that a carbon tax wouldn't violate his no-tax-increase pledge if the proceeds were returned by lowering the income tax, though he made clear he didn't like the idea.

The next morning, the lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry swung into action. "Grover, just butch it up and oppose this lousy idea directly," the American Energy Alliance said. "This word-smithing is giving us all headaches."

For most of us, the reaction to this would have been: Butch it up? But Norquist got the message and within hours issued a clarification: Only a constitutional amendment banning the income tax could justify a carbon tax.

So the industry deserves its share of blame, and that includes ExxonMobil, which hardly trumpets its views on the advantages of a carbon tax. (Its most alarming slide, on the 5-degree temperature rise, can't be found on its public site.)

But blaming it all on Big Oil lets the politicians off too easily. Yes, McConnell represents a coal state, and, yes, he wants to preserve his Senate majority. If those considerations are more important to him than saving the planet, let him say so to our children and grandchildren. Let's not blame the oil companies for the pusillanimity of people who are supposed to lead.

Good question: why won't they?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on December 07, 2015, 08:35:09 AM
Article falls apart when it starts discussing McConnell.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 07, 2015, 08:47:51 AM
Quote from: mongers on December 06, 2015, 12:28:55 PM
:D

Now I really do miss him.  :(

It is, of course, dead wrong. We had far more discussions about religion back when Viking made every thread about religion. We are having them again because Berkut is trying to fill in for him -_-
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Brazen on December 07, 2015, 09:15:57 AM
Storm Desmond has swept the Northwest of the UK bringing power cuts and school and hospitals closures. At least one person has died. There was record-breaking rainfall of more than 340mm in a 24-hour period.

On a lighter note, apparently US celebrity fans saw "Storm Desmond" trending and thought it was Kim and Kanye's name for their new baby  :lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on December 08, 2015, 08:22:04 PM
Apparently Greenpeace has caught two US academics willing to write for hire pieces against climate change on behalf of fake fossil fuel companies.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science)

QuoteGreenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science
Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal

An undercover sting by Greenpeace has revealed that two prominent climate sceptics were available for hire by the hour to write reports casting doubt on the dangers posed by global warming.

Posing as consultants to fossil fuel companies, Greenpeace approached professors at leading US universities to commission reports touting the benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels and the benefits of coal. The views of both academics are well outside mainstream climate science.

The findings point to how paid-for information challenging the consensus on climate science could be placed into the public domain without the ultimate source of funding being revealed.

They come as government ministers meet in Paris this week to try to reach an agreement to fight climate change, and one month after it emerged that ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy were under investigation in the state of New York over claims of misleading the public and investors about climate change.

Over the course of their investigation, Greenpeace posed as the representative of a Middle Eastern oil and gas company and an Indonesian coal company. In the guise of a Beirut-based business consultant they asked William Ha pper , the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University, to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions, according to email exchanges between the professor and the fake company.

Happer is one of the most prominent climate sceptics in the US and on Tuesday was called to testify at a congressional hearing into climate "dogma" convened by Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential candidate and chair of the Senate science committee. He is also chairman of the George Marshal Institute in the US and an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK.

Reacting to the sting at the UN climate talks in Paris, US secretary of state John Kerry was dismissive of the impact of such paid-for work. "One professor or one scientist is not going to negate peer-reviewed scientists by the thousands over many years and 97% of the scientists on the planet," he said.

The proposed report for the fake consultant was intended to highlight the negative aspects of the climate agreement being negotiated in Paris, he was told in the email approach. The physicist was receptive to the commission, and asked to donate his fee to the CO2 Coalition, a group founded this year to "shift the debate from the unjustified criticism of CO2 and fossil fuels".

"My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate change cult," he wrote in an email. He did not respond to a request from the Guardian for comment.

The campaign group assumed another false identity, posing as an Indonesian energy consultancy, to approach Frank Clemente, a retired sociologist formerly at Pennsylvania State University, to commission a report countering damaging studies on Indonesian coal deaths and promoting the benefits of coal, according to the email exchanges.

In both cases, the professors discussed ways to obscure the funding for the reports, at the request of the fake companies. In Happer's case, the CO2 Coalition which was to receive the fee suggested he reach out to a secretive funding channel called Donors Trust, in response to a request from the fake Greenpeace entity to keep the source of funds secret. Not disclosing funding in this way is not unlawful under US law.

Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. "I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like," he wrote.

He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. "Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review," he said. "I think it would be fine to call it a peer review."

Greenpeace said its investigation demonstrated how, unbeknownst to the public, the fossil fuel industry could inject paid-for views about climate change into the international debate, confusing the public and blocking prospects for strong action to avoid dangerous warming.

"Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret," said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. "Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it."

Such practices are receiving greater scrutiny in academic circles after it emerged that Dr Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who rejects mainstream climate science, was financed almost entirely by fossil fuel companies and lobby groups and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. The Smithsonian launched an investigation.

In Happer's case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. "Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course," he wrote.

Clemente, who was approached by the sham Indonesian firm to produce a report countering findings linking coal to high rates of premature death, said such a project fell within his skill set. He estimated a fee of about $15,000 for an eight-to-10-page paper, according to email correspondence released by Greenpeace. The professor said he charged $6,000 for writing newspaper opinion pieces.

He said there was no problem quoting him as professor emeritus at Penn State, or obscuring the funding for the research. "There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US. My research and writing has been supported by government agencies, trade associations, the university and private companies and all has been published under the rubric of me as an independent scholar – which I am."

Clemente told the Guardian that he acted as a consultant to "many industries that improve the human quality of life".

He added: "I fully stand behind every single statement I made in my emails. I am very proud of my research and believe that clean coal technologies are the pathway to reliable and affordable electricity, reduction of global energy poverty and a cleaner environment."

"I write is an independent scholar and University is not responsible for any of my work. This is called academic freedom in the United States," he said.

Greenpeace said it had approached a total of seven prominent figures in the US and UK climate denial movement. The other five declined, either citing time pressures and area of expertise, or just did not respond.

Greenpeace argues its investigation offered a rare glimpse into the practice of clandestine industry funding of reports casting doubts about the threat of climate change. The campaign group argues that obscuring funding in this way dupes the public into thinking the reports are produced by the scholars independently with no financial interests at stake.

Happer, who served as an energy adviser for former president George HW Bush, has long argued that rising carbon emissions are a net benefit for humanity.

He returned to the point in his email exchanges with the fake entity, saying: "The Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world."

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University and author of Merchants of Doubt, a book about the climate denial movement, said Happer had been deploying the same arguments that CO2 is good for agriculture for about 20 years – even though such claims have, she said, been thoroughly debunked. "He has been recycling refuted arguments for quite some time now," she said.

"Happer sits in the profile of people we wrote about in Merchants of Doubt," she said. "I've always argued that for this group of people, cold war physicists, it's not about money, it's ideologically driven."

Meanwhile, Peabody Energy regularly cites Clemente's research to make its case that expanding coal use to developing countries would help eliminate global poverty. That argument runs counter to the thinking of financial institutions such as the World Bank which has rejected the notion of coal as a poverty cure.

Happer noted he had also donated an $8,000 fee from Peabody for testimony in a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide to the CO2 Coalition.

Happer did not dispute the veracity of the emails, but refused to address questions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on December 09, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
Quote"I've always argued that for this group of people, cold war physicists, it's not about money, it's ideologically driven."

Damn straight. That and the pussy.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2015, 04:53:06 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 07, 2015, 08:24:21 AM
Good question: why won't they?

Because the GOP is not Exxon.
Exxon is a private corporation that pursues profit, but at the end of the day they have to operate a complex business that involves a lot of engineering and geology, and requires long-term planning.  They can't afford to indulge in political fantasy, if for no other reason than phenomena like higher storm intensity or sea level rise has significant ramifications for their very substantial investments in offshore drilling, or Gulf Coast refineries.

Exxon has no choice but to remain a member of the reality-based community, but large swaths of the GOP have no such compulsion - on the contrary they may face pressures from their base to depart from it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on December 09, 2015, 04:57:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 09, 2015, 04:53:06 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 07, 2015, 08:24:21 AM
Good question: why won't they?

Because the GOP is not Exxon.
Exxon is a private corporation that pursues profit, but at the end of the day they have to operate a complex business that involves a lot of engineering and geology, and requires long-term planning.  They can't afford to indulge in political fantasy, if for no other reason than phenomena like higher storm intensity or sea level rise has significant ramifications for their very substantial investments in offshore drilling, or Gulf Coast refineries.

Exxon has no choice but to remain a member of the reality-based community, but large swaths of the GOP have no such compulsion - on the contrary they may face pressures from their base to depart from it.

:wub:

Makes me want to go back to working for B.P.*






* what's left of it, after those hurricane force legal cases hit it.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 10, 2015, 07:06:05 AM
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/senate-science-committee-hearing-challenges-dogma-of-climate-science/

QuoteSenate Science Committee hearing challenges "dogma" of climate science

While the eyes of the world are on Paris, where nations are hammering out an agreement to do something about the reality of climate change, the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness once again held a hearing on Tuesday to debate whether climate change is for real. Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who is running for his party's presidential nomination, convened the hearing titled "Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth's climate."

Senator Cruz brought in four witnesses to testify, mostly chosen from the usual suspects that have participated in similar hearings in the past. There were two of the very small handful of climate scientists who express doubts about human responsibility for climate change—Georgia Tech professor and blogger Judith Curry and John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-tank, was also invited to speak. The fourth person brought in to talk climate science was conservative radio host and columnist Mark Steyn. (The last two were keynote speakers at this year's Heartland Institute conference for climate "skeptics.")

Senator Cruz opened the hearing with some ironic remarks. "This is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. Now, this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and we're hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretations, their analysis of the data and the evidence. Now, I am the son of two mathematicians—two computer programmers and scientists—and I believe that public policy should follow the actual science, and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence."

John Christy, who has helped develop the UAH satellite temperature dataset favored by climate "skeptics" because it shows slower warming in portions of the troposphere than we see in surface records, made his pitch for why we just don't know what has caused recent warming. That explanation involved highlighting his graph of tropical mid-troposphere (rather than global surface) model projections and observations that frequently appears in the comments on stories like this one—a graph other climate scientists take issue with—and claiming that emissions cuts would have a minimal impact on climate change. While claiming that research funding is biased, he proposed setting aside five to 10 percent of federal climate research funding for a "Red Team" like the CIA section tasked with outside-the-box analyses that challenge the status quo. This Red Team would "produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses" for climate change.

Judith Curry echoed Christy's complaints, claiming that climate science has fallen victim to "groupthink"—a conclusion she says she reached after reading the quote-mined "Climategate" e-mails between scientists in 2009. (A pile of subsequent independent investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.) The rest of Curry's testimony entailed claims that the science of anthropogenic climate change is unsettled, which she has spoken and written about at length over the years.

Mark Steyn's testimony focused on his accusations that climate science is fraudulent and oppresses contrarians. Steyn's claim to climate fame is that he's being sued for defamation by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, whom Steyn has repeatedly accused of fraud.

William Happer used most of his time to argue that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are good for the planet, claiming that there is "not much dispute" that there is too little CO2 and too much oxygen for plants right now. He also seemed to like Christy's "Red Team" idea, as he said climate science lacks an "adversarial process" to check if the science is right. (Of course, "an adversarial process" isn't a bad description of peer review or the work of thousands of independent researchers.) "I would like to argue very strongly that we set aside some fraction of funding for climate research that is designed to be for the other side," Happer said. That would run counter to the way funding is granted today, which is based on the hypothesis and the quality of the test rather than what the resulting conclusion is going to be.

Happer became a story in his own right earlier in the day, when Greenpeace released e-mails with Happer in which they had pretended to represent a foreign energy company. They asked Happer if he would produce a report extolling the virtues of CO2 but without disclosing their financial support, and Happer agreed this was something he could do. Happer explained that Peabody Coal Company had paid him $8,000 to testify at regulatory hearings in Minnesota. That fee went to the tax-exempt CO­­2 Coalition, which he said pays his travel expenses but no salary. Just before Tuesday's hearing, someone from Greenpeace filmed a heated exchange with Happer asking whether he had been paid to testify. Happer seemed to indicate that the CO2 Coalition "took some of my fee" before rising out of his chair and angrily replying, "I haven't taken a dime, you son of a bitch."

Finally, there was testimony from a witness invited by committee Democrats—former Navy Rear Admiral and current Penn State meteorology professor David Titley. Titley calmly attempted to explain the basics of climate science, highlighting the fact that nothing is ever 100 percent certain in science, yet we understand how to act on risks despite imperfect knowledge.

A question-and-answer portion followed this testimony, which at one point devolved to Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Steyn, and Curry pretty much shouting at each other. But there was also some discussion about satellite temperature data sets. (Curiously, this involved no questions for John Christy, who helps run one.) Senator Cruz is fond of claiming that one of the satellite data sets shows "no warming for 18 years" while ignoring longer-term trends and the fact that all surface temperature data sets show warming over that period.

After Senator Cruz pushed Titley to answer a question about the satellite records, which he claimed "the global warming alarmists don't want to talk about," Titley let loose. "Let's talk about the satellite measurements," Titley said. "Let's talk about orbital decay. Let's talk about overlapping satellite records. Let's talk about stratospheric temperature contamination. I think Dr. Christy and Dr. [Roy] Spencer, when they've put this out, they have been wrong, I think, at least four consecutive times. Each time the data record has had to be adjusted upward. There have been several sign errors. So, with all due respect, sir, I don't know which data, exactly, your staff has, whether it's the first or second or third or fourth correction to Dr. Christy's data. We used to have a negative trend, and then we had no trend, and now we begrudgingly have an upward trend."

To be fair, Senator Cruz was pointing to a competing data set run by Remote Sensing Systems in California that, until recently, showed an even smaller 18-year warming trend than the University of Alabama in Huntsville data set. And the latest version of that UAH data set, which is in beta, reduces that trend once again.

In a curious moment, William Happer chimed in to state that these satellites measure temperatures "the same way as hospitals do today," with devices that measure infrared radiation. In fact, these satellites measure microwave radiation, and doctors aren't trying to simultaneously determine temperatures of various layers inside you when they pop a thermometer in your ear.

Senator Cruz also accused scientists of deliberately manipulating land surface temperature data to create the appearance of warming over the 20th Century. (Quality-control adjustments to sea surface temperature data, which obviously involve a much larger portion of the globe, actually make the overall effect a decrease in global 20th Century warming.) When asked about this, Judith Curry didn't quite support Senator Cruz's accusation but did comment, "To me, the error bars should really be much bigger if they're making such a large adjustment, so we really don't know too much about what's going on."

In contrast to this talk of uncertainty and scientific skullduggery, Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.) opted for some remedial physics in his opening comments. "By burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that would have otherwise remained locked away. This process creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat that otherwise would have been radiated off into space. We know that by the law of conservation of energy, that additional heat can't just magically disappear. Instead, it causes our planet to get warmer."

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 09:17:49 AM
That article is just a case study in why voting for any of these Republicans is not just foolish - it is actively dangerous.

It is the intentional and willful denial of evidence in favor of faith.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on December 10, 2015, 09:44:14 AM
I don't understand, or can forsee, what is the republicans end game here. What are they trying to achieve?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 10, 2015, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 10, 2015, 09:44:14 AM
I don't understand, or can forsee, what is the republicans end game here. What are they trying to achieve?

Imposing limits and rules on businesses or freedom (e.g. cars) = bad.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 10, 2015, 09:44:14 AM
I don't understand, or can forsee, what is the republicans end game here. What are they trying to achieve?

Re-election.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 10, 2015, 11:02:36 AM
A little quiz: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/science/paris-climate-change-talks-quiz.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I got 3/8 right.  :Embarrass:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 11:11:52 AM
Heh. I only got one right.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on December 10, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
I could have developed a quiz even more trivial than that one.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:39:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
I could have developed a quiz even more trivial than that one.

We know  :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on December 10, 2015, 12:29:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 10, 2015, 09:44:14 AM
I don't understand, or can forsee, what is the republicans end game here. What are they trying to achieve?

Re-election.

Fucking religious people.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Liep on December 15, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
November also hottest month in records, 4th straight month that record has been broken.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmi.dk%2Ftypo3temp%2Fpics%2Fe7f76ae23b.png&hash=640d6f384bc86447442db8a9999f2c94008f8ff7)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Norgy on December 15, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
A deal is brought back to Norway.
Environmental activists: This means no more oil industry here.
Politicians: A small step for one man, a blah-blah-blah-blah-blah
Oil companies: Well, I guess that's it, slutpacks for all.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on December 15, 2015, 05:24:25 PM
I saw an article in a paper recently about how the Norwegian oil fund does its investments ethically.

:lmfao:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Liep on December 15, 2015, 05:24:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on December 15, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
A deal is brought back to Norway.
Environmental activists: This means no more oil industry here.
Politicians: A small step for one man, a blah-blah-blah-blah-blah
Oil companies: Well, I guess that's it, slutpacks for all.


So 'Okupert' wasn't so far fetched after all?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2015, 05:57:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 09:17:49 AM
That article is just a case study in why voting for any of these Republicans is not just foolish - it is actively dangerous.

It is the intentional and willful denial of evidence in favor of faith.

I didn't see religion mentioned once in there.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on December 15, 2015, 08:23:10 PM
I have no idea what was agreed in Paris.  It isn't widely reported here, so I don't know if I will be affected in any way.  I certainly hope not  :D
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 15, 2015, 08:32:17 PM
Mono: Religious zealot.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Norgy on December 16, 2015, 05:12:28 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2015, 05:24:25 PM
I saw an article in a paper recently about how the Norwegian oil fund does its investments ethically.

:lmfao:

It's slightly less obnoxious than it sounds. It's basically based on not investing in coal. I bet the fund's still heavily into cluster bombs and DAESH oil.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Norgy on December 16, 2015, 05:14:10 AM
Quote from: Liep on December 15, 2015, 05:24:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on December 15, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
A deal is brought back to Norway.
Environmental activists: This means no more oil industry here.
Politicians: A small step for one man, a blah-blah-blah-blah-blah
Oil companies: Well, I guess that's it, slutpacks for all.


So 'Okupert' wasn't so far fetched after all?

If you managed to sit through all 10 episodes of that tripe, I applaud you, sir. I gave up after episode 3.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Liep on December 16, 2015, 05:17:11 AM
Quote from: Norgy on December 16, 2015, 05:14:10 AM
Quote from: Liep on December 15, 2015, 05:24:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on December 15, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
A deal is brought back to Norway.
Environmental activists: This means no more oil industry here.
Politicians: A small step for one man, a blah-blah-blah-blah-blah
Oil companies: Well, I guess that's it, slutpacks for all.


So 'Okupert' wasn't so far fetched after all?

If you managed to sit through all 10 episodes of that tripe, I applaud you, sir. I gave up after episode 3.


Nope, gave up after 2 or 3 as well.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on January 20, 2016, 12:41:40 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/20/2015-smashes-record-for-hottest-year-final-figures-confirm

Quote2015 smashes record for hottest year, final figures confirm

Experts warn that global warming is tipping climate into 'uncharted territory', as Met Office, Nasa and Noaa data all confirm record global temperatures for second year running

2015 smashed the record for the hottest year since reporting began in 1850, according to the first full-year figures from the world's three principal temperature estimates.

Data released on Wednesday by the UK Met Office shows the average global temperature in 2015 was 0.75C higher than the long-term average between 1961 and 1990, much higher than the 0.57C in 2014, which itself was a record. The Met Office also expects 2016 to set a new record, meaning the global temperature records will have been broken for three years running.

Temperature data released in the US on Wednesday by Nasa and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) also showed 2015 shattered previous records.

Experts warned that the record-breaking heat shows global warming is driving the world's climate into "uncharted territory" and that it showed the urgency of implementing the carbon-cutting pledges made by the world's governments in Paris in December.

Heatwaves have scorched China, Russia, Australia, the Middle East and parts of South America in the last two years, while climate change made the UK's record December rainfall, which caused devastating floods, 50-75% more likely.

The Paris agreement commits the world's nations to limit warming to below 2C compared to pre-industrial times, or 1.5C if possible, to avoid widespread and dangerous impacts. But the Met Office data, when compared to global temperatures before fossil fuel burning took off, shows that 2015 was already 1C higher.

A strong El Niño event is peaking at the moment, putting the "icing on the cake" of high global temperatures. El Niño is a natural cycle of warming in the Pacific Ocean which has a global impact on weather. But scientists are clear that the vast majority of the warming seen in 2015 was due to the emissions from human activity.

"Even without an El Niño, this would have been the warmest year on record," said Prof Gavin Schmidt, director at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He said he expected the long trend of rising global temperatures to continue because its principal cause – fossil fuel burning – was also continuing.

"It is clear that human influence is driving our climate into uncharted territory," said Prof Phil Jones, from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which produces the temperature record – called HadCRUT4 – with the Met Office. Peter Stott, at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, said 2015 was the first year global average temperature was more than 1C above pre-industrial levels.

Noaa's global temperature records stretch back to 1880 and it also found 2015 was the hottest year yet, beating the previous high by a record margin. The agency also found December was warmer than any other month in the record, when compared to long-term averages. Ten of the 12 months in 2015 had record high temperatures for their respective months, according to Noaa.

Nasa's new data for 2015 also shattered its previous record and showed 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

"Climate change is the challenge of our generation," said Nasa head Charles Bolden. "Today's announcement is a key data point that should make policymakers stand up and take notice - now is the time to act."

The Nasa, Noaa and HadCRUT4 temperature records all use independent methods to calculate the global average. They use many thousands of temperature measurements taken across the globe, on land and at sea, each day.

There are uncertainties in the measurements, partly due to fewer measurements in the polar regions, and these are included in the calculations. Stott said: "Remaining uncertainties are clearly much smaller than the overall warming seen since pre-industrial times." Another independent temperature record, from the Japan Meteorological Agency, indicates 2015 was by far the hottest year on record.

Bob Ward, at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: "This [record heat] should put pressure on governments to urgently implement their commitments to act against climate change, and to increase their planned cuts of greenhouse gases. The warming is already affecting the climate around the world, including dangerous shifts in extreme weather events. Those who claim that climate change is either not happening, or is not dangerous, have been conclusively proven wrong by the meteorological evidence around the world."

Despite constantly rising greenhouse gas emissions trapping ever more heat on Earth, the last decade has seen relatively slow warming of air temperatures, dubbed a "pause" in climate change by some. In fact, global warming had not paused at all.

Instead, natural climate cycles led to more of the trapped heat being stored in the oceans (which already absorbed most the heat), some of which El Niño is now releasing. Scientists usually assess changes in climate over decades, rather than years, and the each of the last four decades has been warmer than any decade on record before.

"It's the long term warming trend we need to worry about rather than one hot year," said Prof Piers Forster, at the University of Leeds in the UK. "So we shouldn't get too excited - but it is certainly a sign of things to come."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: lustindarkness on January 20, 2016, 01:02:30 PM
Burn Baby Burn
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Liep on January 20, 2016, 01:20:00 PM
But it's very cold right now.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on January 20, 2016, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 20, 2016, 01:20:00 PM
But it's very cold right now.

Look at this snowball I made!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2016, 12:05:00 AM
Miami is so fucked

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/31/antarctica_sea_level_rise_research_shows_increased_coastal_threat.html

QuoteUh Oh: Antarctica Might Melt Much Faster Than We Thought

By Eric Holthaus


Sea level rise—perhaps the most consequential effect of climate change—just got a whole lot more urgent. If you live near the coast, this is your wakeup call.


In a study released Wednesday, a new estimate of how much Antarctic ice would melt in a warmer world nearly doubles previous projections of sea level rise by the end of the century. And it might be even worse than that: The study did not explore the true worst-case scenario, and its lead author said the work is still incomplete. Taken together with recent results from other research teams—most notably James Hansen's, just last week—it's increasingly clear that consensus projections of near-term sea level rise, about three feet in the next 85 years, are likely an underestimate.

The latest information comes via a breakthrough in simulating the behavior of Antarctica's vast and complex network of glaciers and ice shelves. That's brought a more complete understanding of how warmer air temperatures—projected to surpass those regularly experienced on Earth at any point during at least the last few million years—are affecting the sea level. At the same time, the study provides new certainty that—should the world act immediately to curb carbon emissions at a scale far beyond current efforts—virtually all Antarctic ice melt could be avoided.


We should take this result very seriously. The new study prompted a lapse into Ciceronian prose from the New York Times and an instant revision to sea level rise projection maps for coastal cities worldwide, with many observers noting that, at current effort levels, humanity is veering dangerously close to the worst-case scenario.


"Under the high emissions scenario, the 22nd century would be the century of hell," Ben Strauss, a sea level scientist at Climate Central told the Washington Post. "There would really be an unthinkable level of sea rise. It would erase many major cities and some nations from the map."


But well before then, in the lifetimes of people being born today, the new study points to a potentially existential threat for cities like Miami; Guangzhou, China; Mumbai, India; New Orleans; Boston; and Alexandria, Egypt. In a scenario in which global carbon emissions remain essentially unchecked, the study argues the world's coastal cities could see an additional two feet of sea level by 2100 above previous estimates—about five feet total.


In an interview with Slate, lead author Rob DeConto said that his results would be "really, really bad news for the business-as-usual future."


DeConto found that the biggest deciding factor of future sea level rise from Antarctica is near-term carbon emissions. There's tenuous hope that we're finally getting the message: Global emissions may have temporarily stopped rising in the last year or two, and December's climate agreement in Paris provides the framework to steer humanity off from its present course, albeit only slightly.


"Chances are, there's going to be a much better outcome if we end up following one of the lower emissions scenarios," DeConto says, noting that in the lowest-emission scenario—in which global emissions peak almost immediately—his study finds there about a 90 percent chance that Antarctica will stay essentially completely frozen.


In all scenarios, DeConto found for Antarctica, the damage may already be done—at least on timescales we can imagine. "It takes literally millennia for the oceans to cool back down again. It will take thousands of years for the ice sheet to push its nose back out into the ocean. ... It's essentially a permanent change."


In the high-emissions scenarios DeConto explored, that means Antarctica will be melting both from above—via a warmer atmosphere—and from below—via warmer oceans. Since many of the largest glaciers in western Antarctica are resting on bedrock that's currently below sea level, ocean warming could melt them quite quickly—within decades. "Once it gets away from us, there isn't really a geoengineering solution for that," DeConto said. "Once the oceans warm up enough, it's not going to matter."

Map graphic
https://twitter.com/chriscmooney/status/715281196889018369/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Like any single scientific study, Wednesday's results aren't a sure thing, but they're much closer to a complete answer than anything we've had so far. The Washington Post's Chris Mooney has a particularly illustrative look at the science that underpinned the new results.


The study's major achievement is the addition of two key ice melting processes left out of all Antarctica-wide models to this point: Meltwater ponding and crevasse formation on the surface of ice sheets—so called "hydrofracturing"—and the tendency of ice sheets that are grounded on marine bedrock to rapidly retreat. Scientists know these processes can lead to collapse, because it's already happening: In Greenland, the Jakobshavn glacier is in rapid retreat, with the unstable calving cliff now more than 250 feet high, about as tall as the Statue of Liberty. In 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula rapidly collapsed in just a few weeks after a particularly warm summer saw the formation of innumerable meltwater ponds and crevasses. Recent fieldwork at the Larsen C ice shelf, a much bigger one, showed that the same process may soon play out there.


Luke Trusel, a climate scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, whose similar work was cited in the DeConto paper, says that taken together, his work and DeConto's new work shows that "melting at the [ice shelf] surface can go from insignificant to extremely significant over a short amount of time. This is a nonlinear response to climate warming," Trusel told me. "It's a light switch sort of change. It's rapid." But Trusel says he was surprised by the new study at how rapidly those ice shelf collapses could translate into sea level rise. "As a resident of a coastal community, it leaves me very concerned," Trusel said, who lives on Cape Cod, Massachusetts.


Eric Rignot, a climate scientist who was a co-author on the Hansen paper, said the DeConto study brings evidence of greater than expected near-term sea level rise "full circle." While Hansen's study focused on bottom-up melting (from the oceans), DeConto's study focused on top-down melting (from the atmosphere). "I think these two studies are shedding new lights on the sort of terrible mess we are heading for with ice sheet melt, which most people do not realize and wishfully would like to avoid without doing anything."


DeConto says that his study provides some "complementary" "actual numbers" to support the controversial recent result of James Hansen, who argued that truly tremendous amounts of meltwater from Antarctica later this century could trigger a feedback loop of further ice melt and throw the global climate into chaos. In the top-end scenario DeConto's study describes, meltwater from Antarctica could surpass the equivalent of all the world's rivers combined in about 100 years—which is similar to the scenario that Hansen says could be enough to trigger profound changes in the way global oceans transport heat.


"We're providing mechanistic explanations for how those dramatic sorts of rates of ice sheet retreat could actually happen," DeConto told me, "but we don't need [Hansen's] feedback [to reach similar conclusions.]"


Climatologist Richard Alley, who assisted with some of the initial preparation of the DeConto study, said that while Hansen and his colleagues raised the possibility that sea level rise may far exceed previous estimates, DeConto and his co-author, David Pollard, "have taken a major step forward" in showing specifically how that might happen.


Alley also expressed dismay at the current incomplete state of knowledge in the field of polar glaciology, which he thinks is leading to an environment where every new bit of knowledge makes headlines—and oversaturates people to the point that dire climate change news no longer alarms them. "Personally, I really would be happier if we had the luxury of doing the research on this, without bothering the public until we have 95 percent confidence in an answer. All of us are fully aware how wrong it is to falsely yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater. But, we also are fully aware how wrong it is to sit silently while a fire begins to spread in that theater. Right now, I do not believe humanity can continue with unchecked warming while confidently assuming that sea-level rise will be limited to roughly 3 feet in a century."


Antarctica is a difficult place to do research. It's remote, it's cold, and studies like these are some of the first to assess some of the basic mechanisms by which global warming may profoundly change it. So, there will be plenty of surprises over the next several years as our understanding of the continent improves. Right now, though, it seems like all the surprises are bad ones.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 01, 2016, 12:16:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2016, 12:05:00 AM
Miami is so fucked

But what about your machines that are gonna create stuff out of atmospheric CO2?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Norgy on April 01, 2016, 05:49:19 AM
The greatest threat of climate change is probably more human migration. That will lead to conflict, whether you accept the science or not.

Oh, and I can grow oranges in my garden in my dotage.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2016, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2016, 05:49:19 AM
The greatest threat of climate change is probably more human migration. That will lead to conflict, whether you accept the science or not.

Oh, and I can grow oranges in my garden in my dotage.

Just read another graphic earlier today that said that US growing season has lengthened two weeks in the last 100 years, with most of that growth coming in the last 30.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Norgy on April 01, 2016, 07:41:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2016, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2016, 05:49:19 AM
The greatest threat of climate change is probably more human migration. That will lead to conflict, whether you accept the science or not.

Oh, and I can grow oranges in my garden in my dotage.

Just read another graphic earlier today that said that US growing season has lengthened two weeks in the last 100 years, with most of that growth coming in the last 30.

Probably similar here too, give or take a few days, but wet summers means more rot. While the dry ones means less to harvest.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on September 14, 2016, 07:26:05 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-idUSKCN11K0BC

QuoteClimate change 'significant and direct' threat to U.S. military: reports

The effects of climate change endanger U.S. military operations and could increase the danger of international conflict, according to three new documents endorsed by retired top U.S. military officers and former national security officials.

"There are few easy answers, but one thing is clear: the current trajectory of climatic change presents a strategically-significant risk to U.S. national security, and inaction is not a viable option," said a statement published on Wednesday by the Center for Climate and Security, a Washington-based think tank.

It was signed by more than a dozen former senior military and national security officials, including retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and retired Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the Pacific Command until last year.

They called on the next U.S. president to create a cabinet level position to deal with climate change and its impact on national security.

A separate report by a panel of retired military officials, also published on Wednesday by the Center for Climate and Security, said more frequent extreme weather is a threat to U.S. coastal military installations.

"The complex relationship between sea level rise, storm surge and global readiness and responsiveness must be explored down to the operational level, across the Services and Joint forces, and up to a strategic level as well," the report said.

Earlier this year, another report said faster sea level rises in the second half of this century could make tidal flooding a daily occurrence for some installations.

Francesco Femia, co-founder and president of the Center for Climate and Security, said the reports show bipartisan national security and military officials think the existing U.S. response to climate change "is not commensurate to the threat".

The fact that a large and bipartisan number of former officials signed the reports could increase pressure on future U.S. administrations to place greater emphasis and dedicate more resources to combat climate change.

Addressing climate change has not been a top priority in a 2016 campaign dominated by the U.S. economy, trade and foreign policy.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that global warming is a concept "created by the and for the Chinese" to hurt U.S. business.

Democrat Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has advocated shifting the country to 50 percent clean energy by 2030 and promised heavy regulation of fracking.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 14, 2016, 11:03:09 AM
Are military installations that fragile?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 12:25:06 PM
QuoteDemocrat Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has advocated shifting the country to 50 percent clean energy by 2030 and promised heavy regulation of fracking.

If the first part includes natural gas then that will probably not require much Federal action, since we are already doing that. That last part makes me nervous, I wonder what sorts of regulations she is proposing?

I don't actually believe Trump believes what he is saying. He is a liar. Which actually makes me a little better. I doubt he will be taking much action to stop what is already occurring.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Jacob on September 14, 2016, 01:30:31 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fearth_temperature_timeline.png&hash=056e8096e21ed6688016fadf2d82cb36b2c39ecb)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
The United States and Euroland both have lower CO2 emissions than we did in 2000, for Europe even lower than they did in 1990. China's has started to trend down. Only India is still headed upwards. Surprising that EVERYTHING IS DOOMED FOREVER STARTING IN 2000 and that the current trend is a straight line to doom despite these facts. But hey whatever the new normal is we will have to adjust. The engineering is clearly devoted to lowering CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
The United States and Euroland both have lower CO2 emissions than we did in 2000, for Europe even lower than they did in 1990. China's has started to trend down. Only India is still headed upwards. Surprising that EVERYTHING IS DOOMED FOREVER STARTING IN 2000 and that the current trend is a straight line to doom despite these facts. But hey whatever the new normal is we will have to adjust. The engineering is clearly devoted to lowering CO2 emissions.

If I understand it current CO2 emission levels will still increase atmospheric CO2 for a long time to come.  It will take awhile for atmospheric CO2 to reach a new equillibrium level.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 01:49:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
The United States and Euroland both have lower CO2 emissions than we did in 2000, for Europe even lower than they did in 1990. China's has started to trend down. Only India is still headed upwards. Surprising that EVERYTHING IS DOOMED FOREVER STARTING IN 2000 and that the current trend is a straight line to doom despite these facts. But hey whatever the new normal is we will have to adjust. The engineering is clearly devoted to lowering CO2 emissions.

But valmy, emissions are a flow. CO2 already released is a stock.

The point being, even if we have zero emissions from today forward, which is of course impossible, there isn't certainty where the steady state with current CO2 levels will stabilize.

And of course since we are still releasing CO2, and will be doing so in massive quantities for the foreseeable future, the problem will be getting worse.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:50:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
The United States and Euroland both have lower CO2 emissions than we did in 2000, for Europe even lower than they did in 1990. China's has started to trend down. Only India is still headed upwards. Surprising that EVERYTHING IS DOOMED FOREVER STARTING IN 2000 and that the current trend is a straight line to doom despite these facts. But hey whatever the new normal is we will have to adjust. The engineering is clearly devoted to lowering CO2 emissions.

If I understand it current CO2 emission levels will still increase atmospheric CO2 for a long time to come.  It will take awhile for atmospheric CO2 to reach a new equillibrium level.

I expect new technology breakthroughs to decrease the CO2 emissions in an accelerated fashion in the next few decades but it is hard to predict how quickly this will go into effect. I am not sure what sorts of "massive efforts" would be or what the "optimistic scenario" entails nor what the "current path" is based on. I mean is the Current Path a realistic assumption based on current trends? Or is it based on some kind of Luddite freeze of technology at its current levels?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 01:49:13 PM

And of course since we are still releasing CO2, and will be doing so in massive quantities for the foreseeable future, the problem will be getting worse.

Well you cannot reasonably expect centuries of engineering and technological efforts to be overturned overnight. We are getting really close on clean energy and electric cars and many other techs. These are rapidly becoming not just superior in emissions but superior technologies period (as one might expect when almost all the new stuff is designed with these purposes). But nobody can wave a magical wand and do it all in ten seconds.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 14, 2016, 01:56:01 PM
Nuclear power. And lots of it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 02:40:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 01:49:13 PM

And of course since we are still releasing CO2, and will be doing so in massive quantities for the foreseeable future, the problem will be getting worse.

Well you cannot reasonably expect centuries of engineering and technological efforts to be overturned overnight. We are getting really close on clean energy and electric cars and many other techs. These are rapidly becoming not just superior in emissions but superior technologies period (as one might expect when almost all the new stuff is designed with these purposes). But nobody can wave a magical wand and do it all in ten seconds.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if global warming in any one year is a relationship between the atmospheric change in greenhouse gases caused by humans and the current temperature, the change we are causing in the short term through reduced emissions is probably a rounding error in the models.

If we take next year, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by humans is going to be the cumulative gases released by humans over all time with some adjustment for environmental changes (such as clearing forests), plus what will be released next year. The changes you are talking about are a change from having that amount grow by a few percent vs. shrink by a few percent. That change is going to be tremendously dwarfed by what has been released over the past century.

The point I'm trying to make is that doing better doesn't mean we aren't still fucked. :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 02:40:51 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that doing better doesn't mean we aren't still fucked. :)

The graph seemed to suggest otherwise. The difference between different policies produced radically different global outcomes for actions taking place in a very short period of time.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 02:49:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2016, 02:40:51 PM
The point I'm trying to make is that doing better doesn't mean we aren't still fucked. :)

The graph seemed to suggest otherwise. The difference between different policies produced radically different global outcomes for actions taking place in a very short period of time.

The graph goes out a century and is also very vague as to what is causing the changes - it isn't as though modeling global temperatures a century out is simplistic. "Optimistic scenario" could just reflect that is the outcome of a model with similar inputs to the "pessimistic scenario", but wtih more optimism.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on September 14, 2016, 11:38:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
The United States and Euroland both have lower CO2 emissions than we did in 2000, for Europe even lower than they did in 1990. China's has started to trend down. Only India is still headed upwards. Surprising that EVERYTHING IS DOOMED FOREVER STARTING IN 2000 and that the current trend is a straight line to doom despite these facts. But hey whatever the new normal is we will have to adjust. The engineering is clearly devoted to lowering CO2 emissions.
the trend is on the rist for the entire earth. Certainly higher than 2000. In any case, we shouldn't just measure CO2, it ain't the only GHG, there are others like methane, for example.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 08:25:47 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2016, 11:38:20 PM
the trend is on the rist for the entire earth. Certainly higher than 2000. In any case, we shouldn't just measure CO2, it ain't the only GHG, there are others like methane, for example.

1. No, the trend is on decline for the entire earth.

2. Yes it is higher than 2000.

3. All GHG should decline when we stop burning shit for fuel and power.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 08:32:06 AM
Is this the new climate denier strategy?

After a decade or more of clear scientific consensus on human driven global warming, they finally accept it...but think it is fine, we are going to solve it with science without any need to worry about actually reducing emissions or anything?

That would be ironic, wouldn't it?

There is no global warming! It is a hoax! Scientists are charlatans!
OK, there is some warming, but it isn't much! And its natural! Science is bullshit elitism!
OK, there is warming, but it is perfectly normal, and no evidence that humans have driven it! Scientists are all in a conspiracy!
All right, maybe humans have driven it, and maybe it is pretty bad...but no worries! Scientists will invent clean energy and the problem will go away without any need for business to do anything! Go scientists!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 09:04:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 08:32:06 AM
Is this the new climate denier strategy?

After a decade or more of clear scientific consensus on human driven global warming, they finally accept it...but think it is fine, we are going to solve it with science without any need to worry about actually reducing emissions or anything?

That would be ironic, wouldn't it?

There is no global warming! It is a hoax! Scientists are charlatans!
OK, there is some warming, but it isn't much! And its natural! Science is bullshit elitism!
OK, there is warming, but it is perfectly normal, and no evidence that humans have driven it! Scientists are all in a conspiracy!
All right, maybe humans have driven it, and maybe it is pretty bad...but no worries! Scientists will invent clean energy and the problem will go away without any need for business to do anything! Go scientists!

Damn. My entire question was does it make that big of a difference if it is solved next year or a few decades from now? Considering we are talking about the entire world here. I mean Clinton stated her goal would be to use 50% clean energy by 2030. I pointed out that we, in fact, are already well above that threshold if you count Natural Gas as clean energy. We are pretty close even if you don't. I am very enthusiastic about what sorts of new engineering we are doing and how we can effectively eliminate emissions sometime this century.

I am an Electrical Engineer in the power industry entirely because I have devoted my entire life and career to reducing emissions and fighting climate change so calling me a climate denier is bizarre.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 10:04:52 AM
I didn't call you a client denier.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on September 15, 2016, 10:11:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 10:04:52 AM
I didn't call you a client denier.

:yes:  As long as Valmy keeps billing, we're all happy.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on September 15, 2016, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2016, 10:04:52 AM
I didn't call you a client denier.

Well, I would, just for kicks, but watching his head explode isn't worth the greenhouse gasses that event would generate.   :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on January 18, 2017, 11:52:32 AM
Damn those Chinese hoaxers!  :mad:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html

(Article has many graphics)

QuoteHow 2016 Became Earth's Hottest Year on Record

Global temperatures have continued to rise, making 2016 the hottest year on the historical record and the third consecutive record-breaking year, scientists say. Of the 17 hottest years ever recorded, 16 have now occurred since 2000.

In the historical record, months early in the year, like February and March, have moved further away from the norm than the rest of the year. Scientists expect that the early months of 2017 will continue to show levels of warming beyond the norm, but likely not at the level of 2016 because a strong El Niño weather pattern is now subsiding.

Human-induced climate change has made it at least 160 times more likely that three consecutive years after 2000 would be record-setting, according to Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University and a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Scientific Assessment, which was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

His findings show that if human-induced climate change was not part of the equation, the amount of warming in 2016 have less than one-in-a-million odds of occurring.

"One could argue that about 75 percent of the warmth was due to human impact," Dr. Mann said.

The later months of 2015 and the first half of 2016 experienced faster warming partly due to the El Niño climate pattern in the Pacific Ocean, which sent a surge of heat into the atmosphere.

The El Niño pattern occurs irregularly, in intervals of about two to seven years, and scientists say that the most recent El Niño was among the largest in a century. The peak of the most recent El Niño occurred during winter of 2015, and temperatures were dramatically higher than normal. It began to subside over the course of 2016.

Scientists are working to understand whether climate change is also making El Niño phenomena stronger.

Historical records of global temperature are compiled by two American government agencies: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Meteorological agencies in Britain and Japan also compile reliable datasets of global temperature.

The analyses by the agencies are based on thousands of measurements from weather stations, ships and ocean buoys around the world. Each group tracking global temperature uses different methods to take account of problems in the data, but usually reach similar conclusions about the significant long-term trend of global warming.

For 2016, the records from NASA were likely the most accurate, because of data collection in Antarctica and a more sophisticated statistical analysis in the Arctic. The combination allows NASA to have more reliable coverage in the polar regions of the world, which have been highly affected by rising temperatures. Global sea ice extent reached near record low levels late in 2016.

"We expect records to continue to be broken as global warming proceeds," Dr. Mann said.

Well, good thing that Trump wants NASA to focus on exploring space instead of navel gazing on Earth, so hopefully we will soon have less bad news from them on the climate front. :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Jacob on January 18, 2017, 02:21:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 09:04:38 AM
Damn. My entire question was does it make that big of a difference if it is solved next year or a few decades from now? Considering we are talking about the entire world here. I mean Clinton stated her goal would be to use 50% clean energy by 2030. I pointed out that we, in fact, are already well above that threshold if you count Natural Gas as clean energy. We are pretty close even if you don't. I am very enthusiastic about what sorts of new engineering we are doing and how we can effectively eliminate emissions sometime this century.

I think it's a bit like compound interest... even small amounts can make a big difference over longer periods of time.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2017, 05:04:56 AM
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15109876/climate-change-science-committee-hearing-republicans-consensus

QuoteRepublicans held a fake inquiry on climate change to attack the only credible scientist in the room

Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a heated hearing on the "assumptions, policy implications, and the scientific method" of climate science. In fact, the hearing was just an excuse to pretend there's uncertainty within the scientific community on whether human-made climate change is real.

Four witnesses were asked to testify before the committee; only one of them — Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University — agreed with the other 97 percent of scientists who believe that human activity, like the burning of fossil fuels, is causing our planet to heat up. The other witnesses testified that we don't really know how much people are contributing to climate change, and there's too much uncertainty to consider global warming a threat.

"The witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists who have concluded that there is a connection between human activity and climate," Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said at the hearing. "For a balanced panel, we need 96 more Dr. Manns."

In fact, Mann's views aren't only representative of pretty much the entire science community; they also represent the views of the majority of Americans. Data released last week by the Yale Program on Climate Communication shows that 70 percent of Americans believe that climate change is happening; 53 percent believe that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. And 75 percent want the US government to regulate heat-trapping carbon dioxide as a pollutant. (More than 70 percent of Americans also trust climate scientists on global warming.)

Bonamici said that the hearing was a waste of time. Yet, the committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) commented in his opening statement that "much of climate science today appears to be based more on exaggeration, personal agendas, and questionable predictions than on the scientific method." He added, "Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses."

Some members of Congress went on by asking some ridiculous questions and targeting the only climate scientist in the room who seemed to take climate change seriously. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) asked the witnesses whether it's true that sea levels are actually going to fall, not rise as a result of global warming. (Melting glaciers and land-based ice caps are already causing sea levels to rise.) Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) asked whether we know what caused the ice ages just to make the point that the ice ages occurred naturally and so we can't claim with certainty that climate change is human-made. (Again, within the scientific community, there's basically no disagreement that by pumping heat-trapping gases like CO2 into the atmosphere, people are warming up the planet.)

In a particularly intense moment, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) attacked Mann for saying that Smith took part in a "climate science denying conference" at the Heartland Institute. "From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack after personal attack coming from those how are claiming to represent the mainstream of science, even to the point that our chairman is attacked," Rohrabacher said. "That is ridiculous, people should be ashamed of yourselves." (The live stream then stopped working.)

Rep. Darin Lahood (R-IL) asked three of the witnesses whether they had ever been personally attacked by Mann for their views on climate science. "As I understand it in the past, and this is public record, Dr. Mann has referred to you as 'a carnival barker' and also 'a contrarian pundit.' Are you aware of that?" Lahood asked the witness Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado's Environmental Studies Department. "I can't keep up with all of Dr. Mann's epithets," Pielke responded.

Mann did represent the only "mainstream" scientist at the hearing, so the fact that he was repeatedly attacked is not that surprising. There was a lot of what one congressman referred to as a "food fight among scientists." But as members of Congress hold useless hearings and President Donald Trump tries to bring back coal mining, climate change is only getting worse and we're running out of time.

"The consequences for this country are very grave for our citizens," Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) said at the hearing. "At some point we have to go with consensus for the time being, as we continue research." She added: "We cannot wait for final ultimate truth to make decisions."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on April 01, 2017, 05:22:52 AM
Climate expert Michael Mann. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on April 01, 2017, 05:38:19 AM
He's an expert on Heat.  :sleep:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 10:50:40 AM
So apparently the amount of nutrients in our food had been decreasing over time.  One scientist thinks he knows why: increasing atmospheric CO2.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
Now that doesn't make any sense. We have had periods of higher CO2 in the past and there were still animals around eating stuff.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 13, 2017, 01:38:34 PM
Lions ate them.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on September 13, 2017, 02:10:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
Now that doesn't make any sense. We have had periods of higher CO2 in the past and there were still animals around eating stuff.

Just have to eat more. it's one of the theories why dino's got so big.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on December 02, 2017, 07:47:25 PM
For anyone who says one degree of change doesn't matter...if I ever move my thermostat up one degree (from 64 to 65), my condo becomes a sweltering wasteland.  :mad:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on December 03, 2017, 12:54:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
Now that doesn't make any sense. We have had periods of higher CO2 in the past and there were still animals around eating stuff.

Did you read the article or just the headline?

According to the article, there is no controversy that foods have become less nutritious.  The question is why that is occurring. And this researcher thinks he has linked higher CO2 to lower nutrients.




Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on December 03, 2017, 01:10:04 AM
It is December, but temperatures here still regularly go above 20C, and I still need to switch on the air-conditioner occasionally.  This never happened when I was a kid. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on December 03, 2017, 03:09:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 03, 2017, 12:54:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
Now that doesn't make any sense. We have had periods of higher CO2 in the past and there were still animals around eating stuff.

Did you read the article or just the headline?

According to the article, there is no controversy that foods have become less nutritious.  The question is why that is occurring. And this researcher thinks he has linked higher CO2 to lower nutrients.






I don't remember as that was almost three months ago.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2017, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2017, 01:10:04 AM
It is December, but temperatures here still regularly go above 20C, and I still need to switch on the air-conditioner occasionally.  This never happened when I was a kid.

You were thinner, and in better shape.  Now you break into a sweat opening a laptop. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on December 13, 2017, 05:03:44 PM
That bad news is the Arctic is warming quickly (as predicted).  The good news is there is still at least one US government agency that is still measuring the effects of global warming

QuotePermafrost in the Arctic is thawing faster than ever, according to a new US government report that also found Arctic seawater is warming and sea ice is melting at the fastest pace in 1,500 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/12/arctic-permafrost-sea-ice-thaw-climate-change-report
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: CountDeMoney on December 13, 2017, 05:17:32 PM
For now.  The Administration just hasn't gotten to them yet.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on December 13, 2017, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 10:50:40 AM
So apparently the amount of nutrients in our food had been decreasing over time.  One scientist thinks he knows why: increasing atmospheric CO2.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

Actually that's not too bad for me.  That means, potentially, I can eat more without getting too fat.  Right?  :unsure:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on December 13, 2017, 08:00:02 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 13, 2017, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 10:50:40 AM
So apparently the amount of nutrients in our food had been decreasing over time.  One scientist thinks he knows why: increasing atmospheric CO2.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1 (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1)

Actually that's not too bad for me.  That means, potentially, I can eat more without getting too fat.  Right?  :unsure:


No.  You need to eat more to get the same nutrients.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on January 01, 2018, 07:59:32 PM
So what does the climate in 2018 have in store for 'us'?

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on January 01, 2018, 10:29:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 03, 2017, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 03, 2017, 01:10:04 AM
It is December, but temperatures here still regularly go above 20C, and I still need to switch on the air-conditioner occasionally.  This never happened when I was a kid.

You were thinner, and in better shape.  Now you break into a sweat opening a laptop. 

Plus, when he was a kid, his parents were the ones controlling the heating/cooling setting.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on January 01, 2018, 10:31:57 PM
I think 2018 is the year the world should adopt plans for the active management of the atmosphere; we need a plan B.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on January 01, 2018, 10:46:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 01, 2018, 10:31:57 PM
I think 2018 is the year the world should adopt plans for the active management of the atmosphere; we need a plan B.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Savonarola on January 02, 2018, 04:34:04 PM
Is there a plan for a total ban on diesel fuel in the EU?  Alstom has a new Hydrogen Train (http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2017/03/alstoms-hydrogen-train-coradia-ilint-first-successful-run-at-80-kmh/).  When introducing it our CEO mentioned something about a diesel ban, and I was wondering if that was planned or just speculation on our part.

(The motors of diesel locomotives actually operate by electricity; the diesel engines power the generators.  So this really isn't a huge change in concept.)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on January 02, 2018, 04:35:57 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 02, 2018, 04:34:04 PM
Is there a plan for a total ban on diesel fuel in the EU?  Alstom has a new Hydrogen Train (http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2017/03/alstoms-hydrogen-train-coradia-ilint-first-successful-run-at-80-kmh/).  When introducing it our CEO mentioned something about a diesel ban, and I was wondering if that was planned or just speculation on our part.

(The motors of diesel locomotives actually operate by electricity; the diesel engines power the generators.  So this really isn't a huge change in concept.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/paris-copenhagen-oxford-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-emissions-pollution-nitrogen-dioxide-a8000596.html
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on January 02, 2018, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 01, 2018, 10:31:57 PM
I think 2018 is the year the world should adopt plans for the active management of the atmosphere; we need a plan B.

So who should decide how to do this management?  Seems to me that it is inevitable that such management will result in both losers and winners, and the losers won't just sit there and let their country/region's climate be decided by others.  It isn't far fetched that they'll regard such management as an act of war. 

A real Plan B is to live with the consequences of global warming.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Ed Anger on March 15, 2018, 07:50:45 PM
The University of Dayton is installing 4,000 solar panels...to provide 2% their power. Sigh.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2018, 11:07:19 PM
Not looking good.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/one-of-the-most-worrisome-predictions-about-climate-change-may-be-coming-true-1841735
Quote
One Of The Most Worrisome Predictions About Climate Change May Be Coming True

The new research, based on ocean measurements off the coast of East Antarctica, shows that melting Antarctic glaciers are indeed freshening the ocean around them.

World | (c) 2018 The Washington Post | Chris Mooney, The Washington Post | Updated: April 24, 2018 07:01 IST


One Of The Most Worrisome Predictions About Climate Change May Be Coming True

The new research shows that melting Antarctic glaciers are indeed freshening the ocean

Two years ago, former NASA climate scientist James Hansen and a number of colleagues laid out a dire scenario in which gigantic pulses of fresh water from melting glaciers could upend the circulation of the oceans, leading to a world of fast-rising seas and even superstorms.

Hansen's scenario was based on a computer simulation, not hard data from the real world, and met with skepticism from a number of other climate scientists. But now, a new oceanographic study appears to have confirmed one aspect of this picture - in its early stages, at least.

The new research, based on ocean measurements off the coast of East Antarctica, shows that melting Antarctic glaciers are indeed freshening the ocean around them. And this, in turn, is blocking a process in which cold and salty ocean water sinks below the sea surface in winter, forming "the densest water on the Earth," in the words of study lead author Alessandro Silvano, a researcher with the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia.

This so-called Antarctic bottom water has stopped forming in two key regions of Antarctica, the research shows - the West Antarctic coast and the coast around the enormous Totten glacier in East Antarctica.

These are two of Antarctica's fastest-melting regions, and no wonder: When cold surface water no longer sinks into the depths, a deeper layer of warm ocean water can travel across the continental shelf and reach the bases of glaciers, retaining its heat as the cold waters remain above. This warmer water then rapidly melts the glaciers and the large floating ice shelves connected to them.

In other words, the melting of Antarctica's glaciers appears to be triggering a "feedback" loop in which that melting, through its effect on the oceans, triggers still more melting. The melting water stratifies the ocean column, with cold fresh water trapped at the surface and warmer water sitting below Then, the lower layer melts glaciers and creates still more melt water - not to mention rising seas as glaciers lose mass.

"What we found is not only a modeling study but is something that we observed in the real ocean," said Silvano, who conducted the research in Science Advances with colleagues from several other institutions in Australia and Japan. "Our study shows for the first time actual evidence of this mechanism. Our study shows that it is already happening."

Hansen said that "this study provides a nice small-scale example of processes that we talk about in our paper."

"On the large-scale issue, it is too early to say how these feedback processes will play out, based on empirical evidence," Hansen said by email. "If we stay on business-as-usual [greenhouse gas] emissions rates, so that global warming continues to increase, I expect that the freshwater injection rate will increase (mainly via ice faster ice shelf breakup and underwater melt) and sea ice area will increase. This experiment will be playing out over the next years and decades."

According to Matthew Long, an oceanographer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the study "is consistent with a large body of existing literature that shows warming and freshening of the deep ocean in the southern hemisphere"

"The fact that we see consistent warming and freshening indicates that the processes we expect to play out over the next century are already underway," Long said. "Indeed, this study is part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that the world's oceans are changing - and that the pace of change is beginning to accelerate."

If the process of Antarctic bottom water formation is being impaired, at least in some regions, then it would be a Southern hemisphere analogue of a process that has already caused great worry and drawn considerably more attention - a potential slowdown of the overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, thanks to freshening of the ocean from the melting of Greenland.

"Of those two key areas of deep water formation, the northern Atlantic one has been widely considered more vulnerable to global warming," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who says he has found changes to the formation of dense deep water in the North Atlantic. "It is therefore of some concern that we now see increasing signs that the deep water formation around Antarctica is already being affected."

Rahmstorf pointed to additional studies which also suggest that Antarctic bottom water formation is changing. In one case, a 2017 study relying on measurements from the Southern Indian Ocean, where Antarctic bottom water travels after leaving the Southern Ocean, found that this deep water has been growing fresher over time, especially in the last decade.

One limitation with the current study, however, is that while the researchers have found that deep water is not forming in two key Antarctic regions, they cannot actually say when a change in these regions occurred. Measurements do not go back far enough for that, said study author Silvano. Thus, it's possible that deep water formation in these regions shut off a long time ago, well before the modern period of intense climate warming. That would make it harder to pin current events on human-caused climate change.

Still, the mechanism detected by the study, in which freshening water from glaciers inhibits the sinking of colder waters at the surface, would presumably continue to apply.

Silvano said his main worry is that in addition to melting by the ocean, Antarctica could also start melting on its surface more if the climate warms further - leading to far more melt water forming in the ocean. So far, unlike in Greenland, this is mostly not happening in Antarctica. But it could.

Silvano also said that if the formation of Antarctic bottom water slows, the global consequences could be massive. The process buries heat, and carbon dioxide, deep beneath the ocean surface - without that process, the heat and CO2 could remain in the atmosphere.

And then, there's the problem of rising sea levels if the feedback between the ocean and the glaciers continues.

"The idea is that this mechanism of rapid melting and warming of the ocean triggered sea level rise at other times, like the last glacial maximum, when we know rapid sea level rise was five meters per century," said Silvano. "And we think this mechanism was the cause of rapid sea level rise"

In the future, he said, "it's possible that with global warming, some other areas of Antarctica will see a complete inhibition of bottom water formation, and then this feedback will kick off."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on August 02, 2018, 09:43:37 AM
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/01/world/state-of-the-climate-2017-noaa-wxc/index.html

QuoteGrim report card for planet ranks 2017 one of hottest years in recorded history

(CNN)Last year was one of the hottest in recorded history, according to a new study released Wednesday by the American Meteorological Society.

The report is another piece of compelling evidence that our planet is warming faster than at any point in modern history. It's the 28th version of the annual checkup for the planet and updates numerous global climate indicators such as polar ice, oceans and extreme weather events around the world.

The State of the Climate in 2017 report, led by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Centers for Environmental Information, was compiled using contributions from more than 500 scientists in more than 60 countries.

The fact that 2017 was either the second- or third-hottest year, depending on the dataset used, does not come as a surprise. It follows a string of record hot years in 2014, 2015 and 2016 -- and while 2017 did not provide a fourth consecutive record, it was the hottest non-El Niño year seen.

El Niño, which is characterized by a warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean, tends to warm up the entire planet during years when it occurs.

Conversely, when La Niña is active, it tends to provide some natural air-conditioning for the planet as large portions of the Pacific Ocean cool to below average temperatures. Even though 2017 had a weak La Niña present in the beginning and end of the year, it failed to regulate the planet's high temperature caused by ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gas concentrations.

The major greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide, all rose to record high amounts in our atmosphere during 2017, according to the report.

The global average carbon dioxide concentration was 405.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the highest ever recorded and also higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years, according to ice-core data.


The oceans are also heating up, with significant planet-altering consequences.

The global average sea surface temperatures were near a record high, just slightly below the record from 2016, and the last three years have seen the hottest on record.

Warm seas equal rising seas, and 2017 set a new record for global sea level -- which has risen year over year for six consecutive years and 22 of the last 24 years. Global sea level is rising at an average rate of 1.2 inches (3.1 cm) per decade, and that rate has been even higher in the most recent decades as sea-level rise accelerates.

Unprecedented coral bleaching also occurred during 2017, according to the report, which was the most widespread and destructive ever observed with hundreds of miles of corals in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Ocean basins experiencing up to 95% mortality in the hardest-hit reefs.

Both the Arctic and the Antarctic saw record low levels of sea ice during 2017, as warmer air and sea surface temperatures continued the trend of thinning out the polar ice.

"Today's abnormally warm Arctic air and sea surface surface temperatures have not been observed in the last 2,000 years," the study said.

In March of 2017, at the end of the ice-growing season when the coverage of sea ice in the Arctic reached its maximum extent of the year, scientists found it was the smallest yearly maximum in the 37-year record.

In the Antarctic, sea ice was below average for all of 2017, hitting record lows during the first four months of 2017. On March 1 it hit a record low extent since satellites began observing the ice in 1978.

As for land ice, the news continues to be grim, which is bad news for global sea levels as melting glaciers are a significant contributor to rising ocean levels.

Glaciers across the globe lost ice mass for the 38th consecutive year -- with declines "remarkably consistent" across all regions of the planet according to the report. To put the amount of ice lost since 1980 into perspective, the report states that "the loss is equivalent to slicing 22 meters (more than 70 feet) off the top of the average glacier."

"Climate is not experienced in annual averages," the report states, even though that is how we most often monitor and gauge the changes in our planet's climate variability -- both natural and human-influenced.

"Humans experience climate change and variability most deeply in the form of impacts and extremes," according to the report --- and 2017 certainly had plenty of them.

Even though globally tropical cyclone (hurricanes, typhoons, tropical storms, etc.) numbers were about average in 2017, the North Atlantic basin had one of it's busiest years on record with three standout hurricanes.

Hurricane Harvey dumped record rainfall totals in Texas and Louisiana, including a new US record of 60.5 inches (1,538 mm) which smashed the old record of 52 inches (1,320 mm).

Right on it's heels came Hurricane Irma, which became the strongest tropical cyclone globally of the year and the strongest Atlantic hurricane outside of the warmest waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean.

Hurricane Maria immediately followed, bringing catastrophic damage across the Caribbean Islands including devastating the landscape and infrastructure of Puerto Rico.

All three of these hurricanes ranked in the top-5 costliest disasters in US history.

Notable, deadly floods hit every continent except Antarctica -- with India floods claiming 800 lives, Venezuela experienced its most devastating flooding in more than a decade, and flooding of the Niger and Benue Rivers in Nigeria displaced more than 100,000 people.

Global fire activity was the lowest since at least 2003, but extreme droughts in a few key locations led to a number of devastating fire seasons globally.

In the US, an extreme western wildfire season saw over 4 million hectares burned, costing $18 billion -- which tripled the previous US annual wildfire cost record from 1991. Just to the north, Canada's British Columbia saw 1.2 million hectares burn during their driest summer on record.

Spain and Portugal had their second- and third-driest years respectively -- and suffered through an unusually long fire season that claimed over 100 lives.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on August 02, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
NYT has a long essay arguing that we missed our chance 30 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on August 02, 2018, 10:17:21 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 02, 2018, 04:34:04 PM
Is there a plan for a total ban on diesel fuel in the EU?  Alstom has a new Hydrogen Train (http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2017/03/alstoms-hydrogen-train-coradia-ilint-first-successful-run-at-80-kmh/).  When introducing it our CEO mentioned something about a diesel ban, and I was wondering if that was planned or just speculation on our part.

(The motors of diesel locomotives actually operate by electricity; the diesel engines power the generators.  So this really isn't a huge change in concept.)

For cars in some big cities, not for trains AFAIK. Some train lines are still electrified, once in in a while, to improve service.
The whole Diesel logistic and maintenance chain will take time and money to be substituted. Of course, hydrogen is cleaner than diesel but more flammable.  :hmm:
In French, engineers like to call those locomotives "diesel-électrique" for the very reason you pointed out.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on August 02, 2018, 10:42:47 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 02, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
NYT has a long essay arguing that we missed our chance 30 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

When I read that, I am reminded of one of the interpretations of Cortez and the Conquistadors's behavior during the conquest of Mexico. Having committed atrocities upon atrocities for gold, sacrificed much for the ruthless pursuit of wealth meant that every little setback threatened to showcase just how far they had gone, for so little. Rather than lead them to stop, it spurred them on, like a gambler, willing to burn everything, willing to destroy everything in the knowledge that the end would come soon enough. There is an eschatology to capitalism and climate change.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on August 02, 2018, 11:54:38 AM
So capitalism will successfully conquer climate change?  :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 02, 2018, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2018, 11:54:38 AM
So capitalism will successfully conquer climate change?  :P

In a depressing turn of events I mentioned the article to one of my associates. His response was essentially that it is all too complicated and so scientists cannot possibly know.

That person would probably much more readily believe your comment.  It's easy.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on August 02, 2018, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 02, 2018, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2018, 11:54:38 AM
So capitalism will successfully conquer climate change?  :P

In a depressing turn of events I mentioned the article to one of my associates. His response was essentially that it is all too complicated and so scientists cannot possibly know.

That person would probably much more readily believe your comment.  It's easy.

And wilful.

Feigned Ignorance is bliss.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on August 02, 2018, 01:05:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2018, 11:54:38 AM
So capitalism will successfully conquer climate change?  :P

Everyone imagines themselves as Cortez, and not as one of the Mexica.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on August 02, 2018, 02:36:31 PM
I don't, really.  But what he did was a pretty incredible feat.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on August 02, 2018, 02:58:15 PM
What I meant is that, continuing your analogy of capitalism conquering climate change, it may indeed turn out to be true, but when, and at what cost? The people championing waiting for capitalism to conquer climate change are usually those who imagine themselves as the winner of the process (Cortez), and not as those who lost their lives, or became miserable because of it - people who think they will not have to suffer during a process that promises to be full of sufferings and upheavals. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on August 02, 2018, 03:24:49 PM
I have long argued on this forum for humanity to move to underground cities powered by nuclear reactors.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on August 02, 2018, 03:30:00 PM
You want us to be cave men?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on August 02, 2018, 03:32:07 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 02, 2018, 03:30:00 PM
You want us to be cave men?

Cave. Men.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2018, 04:05:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2018, 11:54:38 AM
So capitalism will successfully conquer climate change?  :P

No doubt it could, that's certainly a solid Marxist thesis.

Sure we might lose a bunch of coastal cities, cost liives, reduce the value of trillions of investment. But capitalism can keep rolling through all that, adjusting to the changes in marginal schedules of production and cost as it goes. Whether you find that reassuring is another question.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on August 02, 2018, 04:55:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2018, 02:36:31 PM
I don't, really.  But what he did was a pretty incredible feat.


Marty once said I had "pretty, incredible feet."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on August 02, 2018, 05:01:06 PM
How did he happen to see your feet?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on August 02, 2018, 05:18:13 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 02, 2018, 05:01:06 PM
How did he happen to see your feet?

I saw them only when Raz was defeated .
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on August 02, 2018, 07:45:12 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 02, 2018, 05:01:06 PM
How did he happen to see your feet?

Footbook profile.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 04, 2018, 07:50:47 AM
The main river that runs through this area is warming.  In the past it reached temperatures in that stressed the salmon swimming up river, on average, two days a year.  But over the last eight years it has was that warm for 22 days.  There is a concern that the run this year could be severely reduced because of continued warming this year.

The significance of that? "In the four-year life cycle of a Fraser River sockeye, 2018 is supposed to be one of the big years — where the river runs red with millions of fish."  If this run declines the viability of salmon in this area is questionable. 

  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sockeye-salmon-water-temperature-1.4771607
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on August 04, 2018, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 04, 2018, 07:50:47 AM
The main river that runs through this area is warming.  In the past it reached temperatures in that stressed the salmon swimming up river, on average, two days a year.  But over the last eight years it has was that warm for 22 days.  There is a concern that the run this year could be severely reduced because of continued warming this year.

The significance of that? "In the four-year life cycle of a Fraser River sockeye, 2018 is supposed to be one of the big years — where the river runs red with millions of fish."  If this run declines the viability of salmon in this area is questionable. 

  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sockeye-salmon-water-temperature-1.4771607

Scottish salmon is much better than Canadian ones  ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on August 04, 2018, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 04, 2018, 10:03:00 AM
Scottish salmon is much better than Canadian ones  ;)

They're also affected:

http://www.thenational.scot/news/16064252.Scientists_launch_tool_to_help_Scottish_salmon_survive_climate_change/
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on August 04, 2018, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2018, 07:50:45 PM
The University of Dayton is installing 4,000 solar panels...to provide 2% their power. Sigh.

4000 10' square panels? Or 4000 1" square panels?

The raw number of panels doesn't really mean much of anything.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: celedhring on August 04, 2018, 10:47:14 AM
Spain, right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQz91Cx0Ato
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on August 04, 2018, 12:41:21 PM
You know what? I think we're fucked.

The changes needed are coming way too slow. Governments and especially consumers don't care enough. It's too little too late.

I think we'll survive as a species but we're in for really rough time :(
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Rex Francorum on August 05, 2018, 06:50:48 PM
Well, I have enough of the summer. Can't wait for autumn to kick in. ----> prefers winter to summer overall. I know there are far worst than ourselves in Québec, but we are not made to tolerate -30 AND + 30.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on August 05, 2018, 08:05:06 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 02, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
NYT has a long essay arguing that we missed our chance 30 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

Well if that is true we never had a chance at all. I still think we are doing some great things and who knows what we might do in this fight? CO2 can also be absorbed as well.

The doomsayers can keep chanting and they may be right,  but I have nothing to do but keep at it. I did become an EE for this, after all.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on August 05, 2018, 08:12:46 PM
You're an electrical engineer?  I thought you were a social worker of some sort.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on August 06, 2018, 05:53:56 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 02, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
NYT has a long essay arguing that we missed our chance 30 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

I have not read the essay yet, but I've seen already a few answers to it from the NGO/environmental activist side and they really criticize it for blaming "human nature" rather than oil companies and the Republicans.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on August 06, 2018, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: dps on August 05, 2018, 08:12:46 PM
You're an electrical engineer?  I thought you were a social worker of some sort.

I was a sort of social worker, but that was 17 years ago.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 07, 2018, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2018, 08:05:06 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 02, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
NYT has a long essay arguing that we missed our chance 30 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

Well if that is true we never had a chance at all. I still think we are doing some great things and who knows what we might do in this fight? CO2 can also be absorbed as well.

The doomsayers can keep chanting and they may be right,  but I have nothing to do but keep at it. I did become an EE for this, after all.

My son has a similar outlook.  It is what keeps me optimistic about the future.  :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on October 08, 2018, 12:57:06 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309

QuoteClimate report: Scientists politely urge 'act now, idiots'

It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.

Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C states that the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.

Staying below 1.5C will require "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

It will be hugely expensive, the report says, but the window of opportunity is not yet closed.

After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.

The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.

Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and and clear.

"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to 2 degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who is a co-chair of the IPCC.

"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."

What's the one big takeaway?

"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS', but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."

The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable.

Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030.

We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades.

Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever!

Five steps to 1.5
- Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030.
- Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050.
- Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero.
- Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia).
- Global net zero emissions by 2050.

How much will all this cost?

It won't come cheap. The report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.

Experts believe that this number needs to be put in context.

"There are costs and benefits you have to weigh up," said Dr Stephen Cornelius, a former UK IPCC negotiator now with WWF, who says that cutting emissions hard in the short term will cost money, but is cheaper than paying for carbon dioxide removal later this century.

"The report also talks about the benefits as there is higher economic growth at 1.5 degrees than there is at 2C, and you don't have the higher risk of catastrophic impacts at 1.5 that you do at 2."

What happens if we don't act?

The researchers say that if we fail to keep temperatures below 1.5C, we are in for some significant and dangerous changes to our world.

You can kiss coral reefs good-bye, as the report says they would be essentially 100% wiped out at 2 degrees of warming.

Global sea-level will rise around 10 centimetres more if we let warming go to 2C, That may not sound like much but keeping to 1.5C means that 10 million fewer people would be exposed to the risks of flooding.

There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat.

"We are already in the danger zone at one degree of warming," said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace.

"Both poles are melting at an accelerated rate; ancient trees that have been there for hundreds of years are suddenly dying; and the summer we've just experienced - basically, the whole world was on fire."

Is this plan at all feasible?

That all depends on what you mean. The IPCC scientists are not allowed to prescribe what should be done; they can only outline what the options are. But those involved with this study believe it shows realistic paths to staying under 1.5C.

"It is feasible if we all put our best foot forward, and that's a key message of this report. No-one can opt out anymore," said Dr Debra Roberts, who's a co-chair of the IPCC.

"We all have to fundamentally change the way we live our lives; we can't remain remote from the problem anymore.

"The report is very clear, this can be done, but it will require massive changes, socially and politically and accompanied by technological development."

Is all this about saving small island states?

The idea of keeping the global temperature rise to 1.5 is something very close to the hearts and minds of small island and low-lying states who fear they will be inundated with flooding if temperatures go to 2 degrees.

But over the three years that the report was in preparation, more and more scientific evidence has been published showing that the benefits of staying close to 1.5C are not just for island nations in the Pacific.

"If you save a small island country then you save the world," said Dr Amjad Abdulla, who's an IPCC author from the Maldives. "Because the report clearly states that no-one is going to be immune. It's about morality - it's about humanity."

How long have we got?

Not long at all. But that issue is now in the hands of political leaders. The report says that hard decisions can no longer be kicked down the road. If the nations of the world don't act soon, they will have to rely even more on unproven technologies to take carbon out of the air - an expensive and uncertain road.

"They really need to start work immediately. The report is clear that if governments just fulfil the pledges they made in the Paris agreement for 2030, it is not good enough. It will make it very difficult to consider global warming of 1.5C," said Prof Jim Skea.

"If they read the report and decide to increase their ambitions and act more immediately then 1.5C stays within reach - that's the nature of the choice they face."

Campaigners and environmentalists, who have welcomed the report, say there is simply no time left for debate.

"This is the moment where we need to decide" said Kaisa Kosonen.

"We want to move to clean energy, sustainable lifestyles. We want to protect our forests and species. This is the moment that we will remember; this is the year when the turning point happened."

What can I do?

The report says that there must be rapid and significant changes in four big global systems - energy, land use, cities and industry.

"This is not about remote science; it is about where we live and work, and it gives us a cue on how we might be able to contribute to that massive change," said Dr Debra Roberts.

"You might say you don't have control over land use, but you do have control over what you eat and that determines land use.

"We can choose the way we move in cities and if we don't have access to public transport - make sure you are electing politicians who provide options around public transport."



Personally, I think we're fucked. Climate change doesn't win elections. People want their cheap energy, cheap beef, drive their cars, fly on vacations across the globe, and buy cheap consumer products, and tomorrow be damned.

I think the rich countries will mitigate some of the effects for their populace. However, I expect we're also headed for mass migrations from heavily affected areas that will likely lead to some extremely ugly reactions from the migrants' destination countries.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on October 08, 2018, 01:16:45 AM
We're fucked.  Not because people can't think long-term, but because the nature of the problem ensures that no one and no single government can take ownership.  For each individual and organisation, the optimal solution is to do nothing and hope that everybody else acts. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on October 08, 2018, 03:16:57 AM
Agreed, we're fucked.  I'm glad I don't have kids, so I won't have to explain it to them.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on October 08, 2018, 09:33:57 AM
I don't know. Technology is moving forward very quickly and given timelines of 2030 and 2050 momentum might pick up. I feel like we have already seen far more progress than we had any right to expect back in 2008. So...it might still work out. And even if we are 'fucked' temporarily I think we can rally. Right now the technology for carbon capture is experimental but it will not be by 2030 or 2050.

Quote from: Monoriu on October 08, 2018, 01:16:45 AM
We're fucked.  Not because people can't think long-term, but because the nature of the problem ensures that no one and no single government can take ownership.  For each individual and organisation, the optimal solution is to do nothing and hope that everybody else acts. 

Is being ahead and having optimal technology really a bad plan? China is a leader here so they clearly are not taking your bizarre strategy of intentionally letting other countries get ahead.

Quote from: Maladict on October 08, 2018, 03:16:57 AM
Agreed, we're fucked.  I'm glad I don't have kids, so I won't have to explain it to them.

To kids this will be normal and they are up to the challenge. It is the olds who are unable to understand it and need it explained to them.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on October 08, 2018, 09:39:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2018, 09:33:57 AMTo kids this will be normal and they are up to the challenge. It is the olds who are unable to understand it and need it explained to them.

I am quite sure that, in the future, when the next generations look back, this will be one of the topics that will make them facepalm in a "What the hell were they thinking" kind of way.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on October 08, 2018, 10:24:47 AM
Quote from: The Larch on October 08, 2018, 09:39:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2018, 09:33:57 AMTo kids this will be normal and they are up to the challenge. It is the olds who are unable to understand it and need it explained to them.

I am quite sure that, in the future, when the next generations look back, this will be one of the topics that will make them facepalm in a "What the hell were they thinking" kind of way.

That is already happening
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on October 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
Should have gone full nuclear.

Also, "we're fucked", "glad I don't have kids" etc. What is this, loser hour? Man the fuck up and deal with stuff that our grandparents would have been thrilled to have to deal with compared to crap back then.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on October 08, 2018, 02:37:52 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 08, 2018, 01:16:45 AM
We're fucked. Not because people can't think long-term, but because the nature of the problem ensures that no one and no single government can take ownership.  For each individual and organisation, the optimal solution is to do nothing and hope that everybody else acts.

That's a very convenient line of reasoning and in accurate, because the large majority of people in the developed world can carry on as they wish and not be especially bothered by the consequences of climate change.

The people who are "fucked" are some others, someone where else and in some other time, maybe next year, next decade or next century.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PJL on October 08, 2018, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
Should have gone full nuclear.

Also, "we're fucked", "glad I don't have kids" etc. What is this, loser hour? Man the fuck up and deal with stuff that our grandparents would have been thrilled to have to deal with compared to crap back then.

Going full nuclear might actually be the only realistic chance that the world avoids catastrophic climate change before 2030.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2018, 03:00:41 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 08, 2018, 09:39:25 AM
I am quite sure that, in the future, when the next generations look back, this will be one of the topics that will make them facepalm in a "What the hell were they thinking" kind of way.

Simple - we weren't thinking.  Thinking is passe.  In the US even a prospective Supreme Court justice seals the deal by putting  his emotions on a grotesque display and by making a mockery of the very notion of logical thinking.

I mean sure warming will cost trillions and ultimately millions of deaths.  But the important thing is we really showed those globalists where to stick it!  Any cost is worth paying for that unique pleasure.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on October 08, 2018, 04:04:42 PM
I managed about 10 seconds of Kavanaugh's disgraceful display...................now he is a Supreme Court judge  :(

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on October 08, 2018, 04:51:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
Also, "we're fucked", "glad I don't have kids" etc. What is this, loser hour? Man the fuck up and deal with stuff that our grandparents would have been thrilled to have to deal with compared to crap back then.

I am, not least by not having kids   :)
Still think we're fucked though.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on October 13, 2018, 11:33:08 AM
28 degrees in mid October, breaking all time records set yesterday and the day before. And the 70s before that.
No wonder people don't care, everyone's enjoying themselves too much.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on October 13, 2018, 07:45:31 PM
Stupid question maybe, but how do they recycle the air on the ISS for the 20 years it's been up there?

The tech is obviously there to filter out carbon dioxyde no?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on October 13, 2018, 07:59:48 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 13, 2018, 07:45:31 PM
Stupid question maybe, but how do they recycle the air on the ISS for the 20 years it's been up there?

The tech is obviously there to filter out carbon dioxyde no?

Money is no object up there for a couple of tonnes of air, down here you're talking about getting on for a million tonnes of atmosphere for each of the 7* billion of us.



* I'm so old/ behind the times, I've probably half forgotten a recent tipping over into another billion, so it's probably 8 billion? :unsure:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on October 13, 2018, 11:19:10 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 13, 2018, 07:45:31 PM
Stupid question maybe, but how do they recycle the air on the ISS for the 20 years it's been up there?

The tech is obviously there to filter out carbon dioxyde no?

I found this which suggests you need low humidity environment.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/long_duration_sorbent_testbed
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on October 14, 2018, 04:27:32 AM
The problem of clearing up CO2 emissions is one of scale and cost.

World CO2 emissions due to human activity were just over 36 billion tonnes in 2015. The current cost of removing one tonne of CO2 appears to be around $600 ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44396781 ). So $21.6tn to clear up current emissions, roughly a quarter of world GDP.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on October 14, 2018, 08:26:25 AM
Does "human activity" figures generally include breathing, or is it just artificial/industrial emissions?

(actually curious, not a lame troll attempt)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on October 14, 2018, 08:32:45 AM
Not sure; it would be around 2 billion tonnes per annum though.

Of course there is the "natural" carbon cycle which would include emissions by animals.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on November 01, 2018, 01:53:58 PM
New report out saying that the Ocean has absorbed more heat than had been thought.  That has a lot of knock on consequences but one of the more concerning ones is that if we are to stay below 2 degrees of warming we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 25% more than had been estimated.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought




Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 01, 2018, 01:55:48 PM
It's the end of the world as we know it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2018, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2018, 01:53:58 PM
New report out saying that the Ocean has absorbed more heat than had been thought.  That has a lot of knock on consequences but one of the more concerning ones is that if we are to stay below 2 degrees of warming we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 25% more than had been estimated.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought

The climate change debate over the past few decades has been a useful object lesson in the consequences of statistical illiteracy on policy.  Namely that to the extent uncertainty exists about a range of outcomes, that should more often than not prompt a willingness to spend MORE resources to insure against the bad outcome, not less.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on November 02, 2018, 10:50:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2018, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2018, 01:53:58 PM
New report out saying that the Ocean has absorbed more heat than had been thought.  That has a lot of knock on consequences but one of the more concerning ones is that if we are to stay below 2 degrees of warming we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 25% more than had been estimated.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought

The climate change debate over the past few decades has been a useful object lesson in the consequences of statistical illiteracy on policy.  Namely that to the extent uncertainty exists about a range of outcomes, that should more often than not prompt a willingness to spend MORE resources to insure against the bad outcome, not less.

Agreed.  I think the most significant thing about this report is that it has reduced the amount of uncertainty regarding the outcomes we can expect.  And because we now live in a world dominated by Trump's constant lies and misinformation - this news hardly gets a mention.  WAD as far as the Trumpists are concerned I guess. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on November 02, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2018, 10:50:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2018, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2018, 01:53:58 PM
New report out saying that the Ocean has absorbed more heat than had been thought.  That has a lot of knock on consequences but one of the more concerning ones is that if we are to stay below 2 degrees of warming we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 25% more than had been estimated.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought

The climate change debate over the past few decades has been a useful object lesson in the consequences of statistical illiteracy on policy.  Namely that to the extent uncertainty exists about a range of outcomes, that should more often than not prompt a willingness to spend MORE resources to insure against the bad outcome, not less.

Agreed.  I think the most significant thing about this report is that it has reduced the amount of uncertainty regarding the outcomes we can expect.  And because we now live in a world dominated by Trump's constant lies and misinformation - this news hardly gets a mention.  WAD as far as the Trumpists are concerned I guess.

I don't disagree.

Oh and give now big a 'number' this ocean temperature warming is, it's astonishing how little impact it's having on politics in America, the UK or many other countries.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on November 05, 2018, 10:18:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
Should have gone full nuclear.

Also, "we're fucked", "glad I don't have kids" etc. What is this, loser hour? Man the fuck up and deal with stuff that our grandparents would have been thrilled to have to deal with compared to crap back then.

Well said.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2018, 11:39:12 PM
Today's youth are too soft, what with their hula hoops and television.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on November 06, 2018, 01:28:11 AM
And there it is. After more than a decade of dragging their feet and fighting court orders to do more to reach climate targets, the government has now stated we need nuclear plants as it's the only realistic option left on the table.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on November 06, 2018, 03:09:43 AM
Yes, nuclear for the base load and wind and solar for intermittent, with improved links between different countries so that non-nuclear renewables can provide a larger percentage share. If fossil fuels are used for the transition then gas is the least damaging.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on November 06, 2018, 06:12:41 AM
Stop trying to make nuclear happen. It's not going to happen.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/015/731/00-look-2-regina-george-mean-girls-throwback-thursday-640x480.jpg)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 06, 2018, 06:19:59 AM
I think we're on the cusp of major changes. The climate will get worse before it gets better. If it gets better - no one wants to really do anything as long as it threatens a country's economic development and competitiveness.

And making it better and/or adapting will require major changes across the entirety of society and will create a huge upheaval either way. EU and US will have to significantly strengthen their borders. Question is what happens when they face their own migrants, e.g. if parts of Spain or Italy become unsustainable to live in, or if US coastal cities are flooded?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on November 06, 2018, 06:32:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 06, 2018, 06:19:59 AM
I think we're on the cusp of major changes. The climate will get worse before it gets better. If it gets better - no one wants to really do anything as long as it threatens a country's economic development and competitiveness.

And making it better and/or adapting will require major changes across the entirety of society and will create a huge upheaval either way. EU and US will have to significantly strengthen their borders. Question is what happens when they face their own migrants, e.g. if parts of Spain or Italy become unsustainable to live in, or if US coastal cities are flooded?

If that happens I'll go and open a pub in Canada near the North-West Passage. We'll serve authentic goulash. Made out of moose.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on November 06, 2018, 06:42:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 06, 2018, 06:19:59 AM


And making it better and/or adapting will require major changes across the entirety of society and will create a huge upheaval either way. EU and US will have to significantly strengthen their borders. Question is what happens when they face their own migrants, e.g. if parts of Spain or Italy become unsustainable to live in, or if US coastal cities are flooded?

It's not like migration from South Italy to Padania  :P or Andalusians to Northern Spain is unknown of. Problem is, even the meseta in central/north Spain will be affected.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on November 06, 2018, 06:55:29 AM
I think it will also depend on a general level of the economy and infrastructure in some places. You can't do anything for flooded coastal cities but if an area becomes more barren and hot, the farmers are fucked, sure, but people may persevere if there'll be jobs and food. I'd imagine, at least.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on November 06, 2018, 11:20:58 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 06, 2018, 06:19:59 AM
or if US coastal cities are flooded?
Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama turn blue!?  :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on November 06, 2018, 11:21:41 AM
Alabama? Maybe. Tennessee is in the mountains though :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on November 06, 2018, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2018, 06:32:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 06, 2018, 06:19:59 AM
I think we're on the cusp of major changes. The climate will get worse before it gets better. If it gets better - no one wants to really do anything as long as it threatens a country's economic development and competitiveness.

And making it better and/or adapting will require major changes across the entirety of society and will create a huge upheaval either way. EU and US will have to significantly strengthen their borders. Question is what happens when they face their own migrants, e.g. if parts of Spain or Italy become unsustainable to live in, or if US coastal cities are flooded?

If that happens I'll go and open a pub in Canada near the North-West Passage. We'll serve authentic goulash. Made out of moose.
sounds good!  Though elk might be easier to find at this latitude. ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on November 06, 2018, 11:22:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2018, 11:21:41 AM
Alabama? Maybe. Tennessee is in the mountains though :P

perfect island real-estate?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on November 06, 2018, 11:23:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2018, 11:21:41 AM
Alabama? Maybe. Tennessee is in the mountains though :P
I meant people from the coastal areas move inland.  "blue states".  Not the ocean.  Though I realize the double meaning now :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on November 06, 2018, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2018, 06:32:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 06, 2018, 06:19:59 AM
I think we're on the cusp of major changes. The climate will get worse before it gets better. If it gets better - no one wants to really do anything as long as it threatens a country's economic development and competitiveness.

And making it better and/or adapting will require major changes across the entirety of society and will create a huge upheaval either way. EU and US will have to significantly strengthen their borders. Question is what happens when they face their own migrants, e.g. if parts of Spain or Italy become unsustainable to live in, or if US coastal cities are flooded?

If that happens I'll go and open a pub in Canada near the North-West Passage. We'll serve authentic goulash. Made out of moose.

You can come to North Vancouver.  We are on a mountain so sea level rise won't be so bad, and our climate is becoming like Southern California.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2018, 05:14:12 PM
He probably can't afford Vancouver.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on November 06, 2018, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2018, 05:14:12 PM
He probably can't afford Vancouver.

You may have missed this part

We'll serve authentic goulash
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on November 06, 2018, 06:09:46 PM
I live on a hill, about 43 feet up and two blocks from the ocean.  When I am old I will live on an island.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 22, 2018, 02:19:39 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DskYMR7U4AEXINE.jpg)

:bleeding:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on November 22, 2018, 02:50:14 AM
This has been said every single winter since the mid-80s.

Using those click bait terms complete with RANDOM CAPITALIZING is really disheartening.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 22, 2018, 03:11:08 AM
Well, he is stuck in Washington when he'd rather be in Florida.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on November 22, 2018, 03:19:21 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 22, 2018, 03:11:08 AM
Well, he is stuck in Washington when he'd rather be in Florida.  :hmm:

He went to Florida on Tuesday.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 22, 2018, 04:51:18 AM
D'oh!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Solmyr on November 22, 2018, 01:02:33 PM
Can you somehow get him to go to Florida when a hurricane strikes there? Preferably for a beach vacation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2018, 09:19:53 PM
Feds release a new report saying we're fucked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576589/
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on November 23, 2018, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2018, 09:19:53 PM
Feds release a new report saying we're fucked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576589/

But we're are not, some other people, some other place, they'll more often than not be poorer people in marginal places; relatively wealthy people will do ok, money will generally overcome the inconveniences.

Just depends how much you're prepared to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on November 23, 2018, 11:08:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2018, 09:19:53 PM
Feds release a new report saying we're fucked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576589/

Unless we are not. But shocking Tim is doing the doom and gloom and WE'RE ALL DOOMED shit. I thought we all died from that epidemic.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2018, 06:59:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2018, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2018, 09:19:53 PM
Feds release a new report saying we're fucked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576589/

But we're are not, some other people, some other place, they'll more often than not be poorer people in marginal places; relatively wealthy people will do ok, money will generally overcome the inconveniences.

Just depends how much you're prepared to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others?

Florida ia going to be devastated
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on November 24, 2018, 08:33:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2018, 06:59:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2018, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2018, 09:19:53 PM
Feds release a new report saying we're fucked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576589/

But we're are not, some other people, some other place, they'll more often than not be poorer people in marginal places; relatively wealthy people will do ok, money will generally overcome the inconveniences.

Just depends how much you're prepared to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others?

Florida ia going to be devastated

How does that contradict or address the point I made?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 24, 2018, 08:37:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2018, 08:33:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2018, 06:59:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2018, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 23, 2018, 09:19:53 PM
Feds release a new report saying we're fucked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576589/

But we're are not, some other people, some other place, they'll more often than not be poorer people in marginal places; relatively wealthy people will do ok, money will generally overcome the inconveniences.

Just depends how much you're prepared to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others?

Florida ia going to be devastated

How does that contradict or address the point I made?

It's where Lemonjello and Fromtia live.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on November 24, 2018, 10:28:28 PM
Quote
Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Balloons at NYC Thanksgiving Parade shatter ALL RECORDS.  Whatever happened to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?


Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on November 25, 2018, 05:41:36 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 24, 2018, 10:28:28 PM
Quote
Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Balloons at NYC Thanksgiving Parade shatter ALL RECORDS.  Whatever happened to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?

:lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 25, 2018, 04:27:03 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/climate/us-climate-report.html?action=click&emc=edit_nn_20181125&module=Top+Stories&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=78513733emc%3Dedit_nn_20181125&pgtype=Homepage&te=1

QuoteU.S. Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy

WASHINGTON — A major scientific report issued by 13 federal agencies on Friday presents the starkest warnings to date of the consequences of climate change for the United States, predicting that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century's end.

The report, which was mandated by Congress and made public by the White House, is notable not only for the precision of its calculations and bluntness of its conclusions, but also because its findings are directly at odds with President Trump's agenda of environmental deregulation, which he asserts will spur economic growth.

Mr. Trump has taken aggressive steps to allow more planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes and power plant smokestacks, and has vowed to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, under which nearly every country in the world pledged to cut carbon emissions. Just this week, he mocked the science of climate change because of a cold snap in the Northeast, tweeting, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" 

But in direct language, the 1,656-page assessment lays out the devastating effects of a changing climate on the economy, health and environment, including record wildfires in California, crop failures in the Midwest and crumbling infrastructure in the South. Going forward, American exports and supply chains could be disrupted, agricultural yields could fall to 1980s levels by midcentury and fire season could spread to the Southeast, the report finds.

"There is a bizarre contrast between this report, which is being released by this administration, and this administration's own policies," said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center.

All told, the report says, climate change could slash up to a tenth of gross domestic product by 2100, more than double the losses of the Great Recession a decade ago.

Scientists who worked on the report said it did not appear that administration officials had tried to alter or suppress its findings. However, several noted that the timing of its release, at 2 p.m. the day after Thanksgiving, appeared designed to minimize its public impact.

Still, the report could become a powerful legal tool for opponents of Mr. Trump's efforts to dismantle climate change policy, experts said.

"This report will weaken the Trump administration's legal case for undoing climate change regulations, and it strengthens the hands of those who go to court to fight them," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.

The report is the second volume of the National Climate Assessment, which the federal government is required by law to produce every four years. The first volume was issued by the White House last year.

The previous report, issued in May 2014, concluded with nearly as much scientific certainty, but not as much precision on the economic costs, that the tangible impacts of climate change had already started to cause damage across the country. It cited increasing water scarcity in dry regions, torrential downpours in wet regions and more severe heat waves and wildfires.

The results of the 2014 report helped inform the Obama administration as it wrote a set of landmark climate change regulations. The following year, the E.P.A. finalized President Barack Obama's signature climate change policy, known as the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to slash planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants. At the end of the 2015, Mr. Obama played a lead role in brokering the Paris Agreement.

But in 2016, Republicans in general and Mr. Trump in particular campaigned against those regulations. In rallies before cheering coal miners, Mr. Trump vowed to end what he called Mr. Obama's "war on coal" and to withdraw from the Paris deal. Since winning the election, his administration has moved decisively to roll back environmental regulations.

The report puts the most precise price tags to date on the cost to the United States economy of projected climate impacts: $141 billion from heat-related deaths, $118 billion from sea level rise and $32 billion from infrastructure damage by the end of the century, among others.

The findings come a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations, issued its most alarming and specific report to date about the severe economic and humanitarian crises expected to hit the world by 2040.

But the new report also emphasizes that the outcomes depend on how swiftly and decisively the United States and other countries take action to mitigate global warming. The authors put forth three main solutions: putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which usually means imposing taxes or fees on companies that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; establishing government regulations on how much greenhouse pollution can be emitted; and spending public money on clean-energy research.

A White House statement said the report, which was started under the Obama administration, was "largely based on the most extreme scenario" of global warming and that the next assessment would provide an opportunity for greater balance.

The report covers every region of the United States and asserts that recent climate-related events are signs of things to come. No area of the country will be untouched, from the Southwest, where droughts will curb hydropower and tax already limited water supplies, to Alaska, where the loss of sea ice will cause coastal flooding and erosion and force communities to relocate, to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, where saltwater will taint drinking water.

More people will die as heat waves become more common, the scientists say, and a hotter climate will also lead to more outbreaks of disease.

Two areas of impact particularly stand out: trade and agriculture.

Trade disruptions

Mr. Trump has put trade issues at the center of his economic agenda, placing new tariffs on imports and renegotiating trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. But climate change is likely to be a disruptive force in trade and manufacturing, the report says.

Extreme weather events driven by global warming are "virtually certain to increasingly affect U.S. trade and economy, including import and export prices and businesses with overseas operations and supply chains," the report concludes.

Such disasters will temporarily shutter factories both in the United States and abroad, causing price spikes for products from apples to automotive parts, the scientists predicted. So much of the supply chain for American companies is overseas that almost no industry will be immune from the effects of climate change at home or abroad, the report says.

It cites as an example the extreme flooding in Thailand in 2011. Western Digital, an American company that produces 60 percent of its hard drives there, sustained $199 million in losses and halved its hard drive shipments in the last quarter of 2011. The shortages temporarily doubled hard drive prices, affecting other American companies like Apple, HP and Dell.

American companies should expect many more such disruptions, the report says.

"Climate change is another risk to the strength of the U.S. trade position, and the U.S. ability to export," said Diana Liverman, a University of Arizona professor and co-author of the report. "It can affect U.S. products, and as it drives poverty abroad we can lose consumer markets."

Agricultural risks

The nation's farm belt is likely to be among the hardest-hit regions, and farmers in particular will see their bottom lines threatened.

"Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on rangelands and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt agricultural productivity in the U.S.," the report says. "Expect increases in challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad."

By 2050, the scientists forecast, changes in rainfall and hotter temperatures will reduce the agricultural productivity of the Midwest to levels last seen in the 1980s.

The risks, the report noted, depend on the ability of producers to adapt to changes.

During the 2012 Midwestern drought, farmers who incorporated conservation practices fared better, said Robert Bonnie, a Rubenstein Fellow at Duke University who worked in the Agriculture Department during the Obama administration. But federal programs designed to help farmers cope with climate change have stalled because the farm bill, the primary legislation for agricultural subsidies, expired this fall.

The report says the Midwest, as well as the Northeast, will also experience more flooding when it rains, like the 2011 Missouri River flood that inundated a nuclear power plant near Omaha, forcing it to shut down for years.

Other parts of the country, including much of the Southwest, will endure worsening droughts, further taxing limited groundwater supplies. Those droughts can lead to fires, a phenomenon that played out this fall in California as the most destructive wildfire in state history killed dozens of people.

The report predicts that frequent wildfires, long a plague of the Western United States, will also become more common in other regions, including the Southeast. The 2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires, which killed 14 people and burned more than 17,000 acres in Tennessee, may have been just the beginning. But unlike in the West, "in the Southeast, they have no experience with an annual dangerous fire season, or at least very little," said Andrew Light, a co-author of the report and a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute.

Climate change is taking the United States into uncharted territory, the report concludes. "The assumption that current and future climate conditions will resemble the recent past is no longer valid," it says.

There is always some uncertainty in climate projections, but scientists' estimates about the effects of global warming to date have largely been borne out. The variable going forward, the report says, is the amount of carbon emissions humans produce.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 27, 2018, 03:28:42 AM
Well, that's settled:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter

QuoteTrump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

US President Donald Trump has cast doubt on a report by his own government warning of devastating effects from climate change.

Asked outside the White House about the findings that unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy, he said: "I don't believe it."

The report found that climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars annually and damage health.

The Trump administration has pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda.

The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity.

What did President Trump say?

He told reporters on Monday that he had "read some of" Friday's report, which was compiled with help from US government agencies and departments.

Mr Trump said other countries must take measures to cut their emissions.

"You're going to have to have China and Japan and all of Asia and all these other countries, you know, it [the report] addresses our country," he said.

"Right now we're at the cleanest we've ever been and that's very important to me.

"But if we're clean, but every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good.

"So I want clean air, I want clean water, very important."

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused the Trump administration of trying to hide the report.

What did the report say?

The Fourth National Climate Assessment outlines the potential impacts of climate change across every sector of American society.

"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many US states," the report says.

"Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century."

The report notes that the effects of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country, including more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events.

But it says that projections of future catastrophe could change if society works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and "to adapt to the changes that will occur".

What has President Trump previously said on climate change?

In October, President Trump accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda", telling Fox News he was unconvinced that humans were responsible for the earth's rising temperatures.

After taking office he announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement, which commits another 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels.

At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage US businesses and workers.

During his election campaign in 2016 Mr Trump said climate change was "a hoax". However he has since rowed back on that statement saying in a recent interview: "I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference."

How great is the climate threat?

A report released in October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the leading international body evaluating climate change - said it could be stopped only if the world made major, and costly, changes.

That means reducing global emissions of CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and reducing coal use to almost zero and using up to seven million sq km (2.7 million square miles) for land energy crops.

If the world fails to act, the researchers warned, there would be some significant and dangerous changes to our world, including rising sea levels, significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops such as rice, maize and wheat.


To be fair, even the governments who pay lip service to climate change don't do nearly enough to curb it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 03:42:35 AM
The USA's CO2 emissions are falling while virtuous Germany is increasing CO2 emissions  :hmm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#7b70f9ed3535

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/24/germany-announces-carbon-emission-rise-second-year-row/

There are good reasons for this of course. Shale gas replacing coal in the USA is a big improvement for example. But it is interesting, in the instagram age, how important the posturing of leaders is to people's perceptions of reality.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 09:14:30 AM
Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on November 27, 2018, 09:15:48 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 09:14:30 AM
Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?

Yeah. The environmentalists are shitty allies.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 27, 2018, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 03:42:35 AM
The USA's CO2 emissions are falling while virtuous Germany is increasing CO2 emissions  :hmm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#7b70f9ed3535

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/24/germany-announces-carbon-emission-rise-second-year-row/

There are good reasons for this of course. Shale gas replacing coal in the USA is a big improvement for example. But it is interesting, in the instagram age, how important the posturing of leaders is to people's perceptions of reality.

That's why I used the term "lip service." Many countries talk a big game, but shy back from taking decisive steps. In Germany, the government would have to tackle the energy sector, industries, and car manufacturers, but with the jobs attached and size of these sectors, nobody seems even willing to formulate a plan. The government has been waffling for months about the Diesel emissions that are in breach of EU regulations with basically no cooperation from the car industry.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on November 27, 2018, 09:38:23 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 27, 2018, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 03:42:35 AM
The USA's CO2 emissions are falling while virtuous Germany is increasing CO2 emissions  :hmm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#7b70f9ed3535

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/24/germany-announces-carbon-emission-rise-second-year-row/

There are good reasons for this of course. Shale gas replacing coal in the USA is a big improvement for example. But it is interesting, in the instagram age, how important the posturing of leaders is to people's perceptions of reality.

That's why I used the term "lip service." Many countries talk a big game, but shy back from taking decisive steps. In Germany, the government would have to tackle the energy sector, industries, and car manufacturers, but with the jobs attached and size of these sectors, nobody seems even willing to formulate a plan. The government has been waffling for months about the Diesel emissions that are in breach of EU regulations with basically no cooperation from the car industry.


'People' just want to buy stuff, shovel in at the front, shit it out at the back; someone else in another time will clean it up.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 09:14:30 AM
Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?

Nuclear power plants can't survive freakishly huge tsunamis. They cannot be kept on German soil!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 10:32:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 27, 2018, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 03:42:35 AM
The USA's CO2 emissions are falling while virtuous Germany is increasing CO2 emissions  :hmm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#7b70f9ed3535

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/24/germany-announces-carbon-emission-rise-second-year-row/

There are good reasons for this of course. Shale gas replacing coal in the USA is a big improvement for example. But it is interesting, in the instagram age, how important the posturing of leaders is to people's perceptions of reality.

That's why I used the term "lip service." Many countries talk a big game, but shy back from taking decisive steps. In Germany, the government would have to tackle the energy sector, industries, and car manufacturers, but with the jobs attached and size of these sectors, nobody seems even willing to formulate a plan. The government has been waffling for months about the Diesel emissions that are in breach of EU regulations with basically no cooperation from the car industry.

Yes indeed.

Trump really is a blessing here. The well-heeled can point their fingers at the vile orange oaf whilst carrying on with their ski-trips, overpowered cars and exotic holidays with a clear conscience  :huh:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  :lol: Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 09:14:30 AM
Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?

Nuclear power plants can't survive freakishly huge tsunamis. They cannot be kept on German soil!

I've heard that nuclear plants contain atoms!  :o
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on November 27, 2018, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 27, 2018, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 03:42:35 AM
The USA's CO2 emissions are falling while virtuous Germany is increasing CO2 emissions  :hmm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#7b70f9ed3535

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/24/germany-announces-carbon-emission-rise-second-year-row/

There are good reasons for this of course. Shale gas replacing coal in the USA is a big improvement for example. But it is interesting, in the instagram age, how important the posturing of leaders is to people's perceptions of reality.

That's why I used the term "lip service." Many countries talk a big game, but shy back from taking decisive steps. In Germany, the government would have to tackle the energy sector, industries, and car manufacturers, but with the jobs attached and size of these sectors, nobody seems even willing to formulate a plan. The government has been waffling for months about the Diesel emissions that are in breach of EU regulations with basically no cooperation from the car industry.

Diesel powered cars are more common in Germany than in the US, correct?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on November 27, 2018, 11:24:36 AM
Not as common as on Krypton.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 11:33:52 AM
What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.

Take crap like that, and the fact that as it turns out most of the plastic "recycling" in the West involved dumping it on China, and it's really hard to take this whole thing seriously. Not the actual climate problem, that's serious enough. But attempts to reverse it.

Even in seeming efforts it's just a battleground for short-term economic and political interests. See the whole plastic recycling thing. Or how you switch from nuclear to coal to score a cheap political victory. Or how people are made to obsess over cars and their fuel usage, when even with that's gone you still have ships and trains burning oil, not to mention all the other industrial products derived from it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 11:45:04 AM
The government should really try to reclaim the costs of those subsidies from the car companies; given that we were supplied with falsified data and that data led to the subsidies.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2018, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  :lol: Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2018, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  :lol: Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.

Assuming most companies don't trick our outright lie regarding them when offering such extra charges for customers.

I mean look at the recent findings regarding plastic recycling in the UK. MASSIVE fraud using loopholes in the system.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on November 27, 2018, 12:56:37 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 09:14:30 AM
Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?

Nuclear power plants can't survive freakishly huge tsunamis. They cannot be kept on German soil!

I've heard that nuclear plants contain atoms!  :o

If only they had an Atomwaffe like we do.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on November 27, 2018, 01:44:57 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 11:33:52 AM
What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.


Macron is already punishing diesel drivers now, after years of cheaper diesel fuel prices too.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on November 27, 2018, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 27, 2018, 09:14:30 AM
Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?


You forgot Russian gas in the new green energy mix, courtesy of Gazprom and Former Kanzler Schröder.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on November 27, 2018, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2018, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  :lol: Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.
elegant, yes.  Efficient, not so much.

For the tree you buy, it will take it's entire life, say 30 years, to offset the cost of one trip to some southern, sunny carribean place.  If a tree buyer and his family are doing this trip every year, they create a lot more damage than they can repair.

If they use private planes or private helicopters, it's even worst.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on November 27, 2018, 04:21:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 11:33:52 AM
What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.

I bought a diesel car.  :(

(or, now I should know why I got a pretty good deal on the price)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on November 27, 2018, 04:47:15 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2018, 04:21:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 11:33:52 AM
What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.

I bought a diesel car.  :(

(or, now I should know why I got a pretty good deal on the price)

Oh, bad luck.

Should have consulted with us UK bores in tbr  :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2018, 04:53:06 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 27, 2018, 04:19:24 PM
elegant, yes.  Efficient, not so much.

For the tree you buy, it will take it's entire life, say 30 years, to offset the cost of one trip to some southern, sunny carribean place.  If a tree buyer and his family are doing this trip every year, they create a lot more damage than they can repair.

If they use private planes or private helicopters, it's even worst.

Are you saying they are running out of space in which to plant trees?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2018, 06:19:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 27, 2018, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 27, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  :lol: Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.

There are many methods for reducing global emissions and at this point we need to use lots of them, elegant or not.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on November 28, 2018, 01:38:56 AM
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/donald-trump-climate-change-report/index.html

QuoteTrump administration climate change report is dead wrong, says Trump administration

Washington (CNN)Last Friday, the Trump administration -- 13 federal agencies working in coordination -- released the Fourth National Climate Assessment, a detailed document featuring the conclusions of more than 300 scientists that the planet is getting warmer, human activity is contributing to that warming and we are approaching a point of no return in terms of the damage to the climate.

It's a stunning document. It's also one that President Donald Trump and his administration don't, uh, believe.
"I don't believe it," Trump told reporters Monday of the report, acknowledging that he had only read "some" of the study.

Then, on Tuesday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders took the whole thing a step further. "We think that this is the most extreme version and it's not based on facts," Sanders said. "It's based on -- it's not data-driven. We'd like to see something that is more data-driven."

Let's be very clear about what is going on here: The President and his official spokesperson are rejecting the conclusions of a detailed study conducted by the Trump administration because the findings of that study don't comport with the President's long-held beliefs that climate change just isn't a real thing.

And this is far from the first time this has happened. Back in 2017, the US intelligence community unanimously concluded that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Trump has continued to raise questions about whether Russia actually did it. Earlier this month, the CIA determined that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had personally ordered the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump, in an official White House statement, said "our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event -- maybe he did and maybe he didn't!"
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on November 28, 2018, 03:01:18 AM
I don't think one should consider the entire government part of the administration.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on December 05, 2018, 07:01:17 AM
BC's carbon tax viewed as the model to emulate

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/how-to-make-a-carbon-tax-popular-give-the-profits-to-the-people
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 12, 2018, 07:52:06 AM
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/11/world/climate-change-arctic-report-card-2018-wxc/index.html

QuoteUnparalleled warmth is changing the Arctic and affecting weather in US, Europe

(CNN)The Arctic is experiencing a multi-year stretch of unparalleled warmth "that is unlike any period on record," according to the 2018 Arctic Report Card, a peer-reviewed report released Tuesday morning from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency within the United States Department of Commerce.

The report states that human-caused climate change is transforming the Arctic, both physically through the reduction of sea ice, and biologically through reductions in wildlife populations and introduction of marine toxins and algae.

The report is yet another study from part of the US government indicating that climate change is real and having a profound impact, despite denials from the President and senior members of his Administration.

Temperatures in the Arctic are warming more than twice as fast as the overall planet's average temperature, with temperatures this year in the highest latitudes (above 60 degrees north) coming in 1.7 degrees Celsius (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981-2010 average. These were the second warmest (behind 2016) air temperatures ever recorded during the Arctic year, which runs from October through September to avoid splitting the winter season.

The five years since 2014 have been warmer than any other years in the historical record, which goes back to 1900. Although Arctic temperatures have been subject to wild swings back and forth through the decades due to natural variability, they have been consistently warmer than average since 2000 and at or near record since 2014, the report states.

"The changes we are witnessing in the Arctic are sufficiently rapid that they cannot be explained without considering our impacts on the chemistry of the atmosphere," Thomas Mote, a research scientist at the University of Georgia who authored part of the report, told CNN in an email.

Mote expressed that any natural cycle or mechanism that would lead to the amount of warming and ice loss that has been observed would take much longer than the few years over which we have seen these drastic changes.

The rapid warming of the Arctic is known as "Arctic amplification," which is due to multiple feedback loops that the report describes. Warmer temperatures lead to less ice and snow, which means less sunlight is reflected and more is absorbed by the darker oceans. This warms the ocean further, which in turn decreases the sea ice even more. The lack of sea ice and more ocean surface leads to additional cloudiness later in the fall season, which keeps the Arctic region warmer even later into the winter.

"What starts in the Arctic isn't confined there," Mote noted. "Changes in sea ice influence ocean currents and the jet stream in ways that can affect weather in lower latitudes, including the United States and Europe," Mote said.

The report highlighted several of these events over the past year as an example of how Arctic warming can influence day-to-day weather.

The swarm of Nor'easters that plauged the eastern United States in early 2018 and the extreme cold outbreak during March in Europe, known as the "Beast from the East," were specifically noted
.

Sea ice continues to decline

As you would expect with the trend of record warm temperatures, sea ice has seen dramatic declines over the past 20 years as well, with 2018 continuing that trend.

According to the 2018 Arctic Report Card, this year featured the second-lowest winter sea-ice extent -- the amount of the Arctic Ocean that is covered with sea ice -- since the satellite record began in 1979. The summer minimum sea ice was the sixth-lowest over the same time period.

While winter sea ice extents have decreased at a much slower rate compared to the ice extent during the summer, there has been a significant change to the ice pack during the winter.

The ice is much younger than it used to be. According to the report, fewer than 1% of Arctic ice is considered "oldest ice," meaning it is at least four years old and has survived multiple melt seasons. Older ice tends to be thicker and more resilient to changes in temperature.

Since scientists began measuring the age of the ice in the mid-1980s, multi-year ice in the Arctic has decreased in size from 2.54 million square kilometers (roughly the size of Mexico and all of Central America combined) to 0.13 million square kilometers (roughly the size of Nicaragua in Central America) -- a 95% reduction in a little over 30 years.

"Sea ice cover has transformed from a strong, thick pack in the 1980s to a more fragile, younger, thinner, and more mobile pack in recent years," the report states, where "the thinner, younger ice is more vulnerable to melting out in the summer and has contributed to the decreasing trend in the minimum ice extent."

Red tides and reindeer

The warming of the Arctic climate and the decline of sea ice have led to some drastic changes in the biodiversity of the region.

The report's authors found notable increases in harmful algal blooms, often known as red tides, which can affect human, wildlife and ecosystem health and lead to mass die-offs of fish and marine mammals, such as was observed in Florida during much of the summer this year.

As the Arctic warms, new toxins are being introduced to the region. This map highlights the location and kind of toxins found in marine animal species from 2004 to 2013 in the Alaskan Arctic.

While normally confined to warmer climates, the toxin-producing phytoplankton have been shifting northward as ocean temperatures rise, posing a risk to the local populations and economies that depend heavily on fishing for food and tourism.

Other native wildlife species are feeling the heat, as well. Reindeer and caribou populations continued to decline in 2018, according to the report, with their total populations dropping by more than 50% over the past 20 years.

While climate change isn't the only factor likely behind the decline in these herds, it is a driving force for a number of threats the animals face. Increased heat stress, food shortages, disease and parasites -- climate change overarches each of these challenges, the report states.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 12, 2018, 01:31:57 PM
Climate/environmental policy at work:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/epa-science-adviser-allowed-industry-group-edit-journal-article

QuoteEPA science adviser allowed industry group to edit journal article

When the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) begins a major review of air pollution standards this week, a researcher who has received funding from an industry group opposed to the rules will be leading the agency's panel.

Tony Cox, who was named chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, accepted funding from the American Petroleum Institute (API) to help finance his research into particulate matter pollution. He also allowed the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group to proofread and copy edit his findings before they were published, according to his own acknowledgements.

It's highly unusual to give an industry group, or anyone who funds scientific work, a chance to influence the outcome of research, according to scientists.

"Certainly his ties to industry and comfort with allowing them to influence the science is concerning given he is heading a process where we know there will be heavy industry pressure to influence it," said Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The arrangement is unusual in the scientific community because it stands to discredit a researcher's work, even if the group that provided funding makes innocuous changes, other researchers said. In this case, the access that Cox gave to API doesn't seem to have dramatically altered the conclusions of his study. Instead, a small change here and there could have made it a friendlier vehicle for the industry's message, Goldman said.

It "implies that the messaging matters," she said.

Cox, who was nominated for his position by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been critical of EPA air pollution regulations and has said that research showing the connection between air pollution and serious human health consequences is overblown. He sent E&E News a study that happened to contain copy edits, which he said were made by reviewers. It's unclear which changes were made by API, and Cox denies that the fossil fuel lobbying group offered meaningful edits.

Cox is a statistician who is now tasked with overseeing the advisory committee's review of particulate matter pollution standards. It's supposed to make a key health determination that could affect millions of Americans: chiefly whether the level of air pollution they are breathing is hurting them.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is meeting Wednesday and Thursday to review EPA's science assessment for particulate matter. It's part of the legal requirement under the Clean Air Act that EPA review scientific information related to the national ambient air quality standards for six pollutants. They are: particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and sulfur dioxide.

Cox states in his study that API provided input before it was published last year.

"This paper benefited from close proof-reading and copy-editing suggestions from API, but these reviews and suggestions were provided for the author's consideration without constraints that any of them be incorporated," he wrote in the study, which was published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology.

API, which lobbies the government on behalf of fossil fuel companies, has a history of fighting regulations on air pollution, sometimes by pointing to the scientific conclusions of studies that it funded.

Before Pruitt resigned amid a flurry of ethics investigations earlier this year, EPA replaced academic researchers on its science advisory boards with researchers supported by industry groups. Pruitt declared that scientists who received EPA grants had conflicts of interest, while those who are paid by polluting industries deserved a louder voice. That's when he named Cox to lead the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

Under acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, EPA has gone even further to sideline scientists, particularly around air pollution. It recently disbanded a separate panel of scientists, who are supposed to review particulate matter pollution, and canceled plans for another panel that was to review ozone.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has remade the panel led by Cox. It now includes an academic and several state regulators who have downplayed the effects of air pollution.

Cox's 2017 study, which examines the causal relationship between air pollution and human health, was published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology. The journal has a reputation for publishing industry-funded work that's sometimes used to argue against government regulations.

Cox's research questions previous studies that have connected serious human health problems to air pollution. It fits with the approach that Cox has taken when testifying to Congress: He emphasizes uncertainties, including in 2015, when he told lawmakers that health benefits of reducing ozone exposure were "unwarranted and exaggerated."

Cox denied that API influenced his work and said the organization did not suggest any substantive changes. The fossil fuel group offered "some minor copy editing suggestions on punctuation and my use of 'relation' vs. 'relationship,'" Cox said.

"Neither in effect nor in actual fact did they interfere with, shape, or direct my findings or the conduct of my research in any way," Cox said in an email to E&E News. "My research was complete before I drafted the paper, and nothing of substance changed thereafter except in response to journal reviewer comments and my own re-reading for clarity. My research is and always have been my own, and I do not accept outside interference."

Cox has a history of attacking established research on the health risks of air pollution, using his own statistical model to crunch data associated with particulate matter, or PM2.5.

In one study, he said there was "no evidence that reductions in PM2.5 concentrations cause reductions in mortality rates." In addition to API, he has received funding from the American Chemistry Council and Philip Morris International Inc., the tobacco company.

There's a large body of science that connects serious health ailments to air pollution. Ozone and fine particle air pollution are particularly dangerous to vulnerable groups of people, including children, the elderly, people with asthma and outdoor workers.

The World Health Organization published research earlier this year that found nine out of 10 people globally breathe polluted air and that air pollution kills 7 million people annually. It's one of the leading causes of death. Vehicle emissions are a leading cause of air pollution worldwide.

John Bachmann, EPA's director for science policy on air quality during President George W. Bush's administration, said it's "crazy" that EPA is barring researchers who received agency grants from sitting on advisory panels. They are often some of the best researchers, he said.

That change means the panel overseen by Cox is reviewing air pollution standards without the help of a single epidemiologist. Altogether, the altered panels once included at least seven epidemiologists; they're all gone, Bachmann said.

He added that current members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee are qualified, but their capabilities, expertise and perspectives are greatly limited compared with those who once served on a specialized panel to review particulate matter. Pruitt disbanded it.

"It's a huge loss to claim you can review a document that has hundreds and hundreds of pages on epidemiology by people who don't do it, don't do the research in it and the one guy who has done some of it has a point of view that is not mainstream," Bachmann said, referring to Cox.

Cox's 2017 study is a "review paper that focuses on epidemiological literature and application of epidemiological methods to case studies by someone who is not an epidemiologist," said Christopher Frey, a former chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

In the past, it was rare to appoint a chair who had not previously served on the panel, Frey said. The Clean Air Act requires reviews by the advisory panel to be thorough and to rely on the latest science. He said industry researchers, going back to tobacco industry efforts to discredit the health effects of smoking, are largely focused on uncertainty rather than the risks. Frey said EPA, when it funded some of his research, did not seek to edit his work beforehand.

"In a regulatory purpose, you really want all the members of the committee to be perceived as impartial and free of conflict of interest, and I don't think as a group this committee earns that perception."

Frey, who served as chairman of the committee from 2012 to 2015 and was first appointed in 2008 under Bush, said the current board is derived of stakeholders with a vested interest.

The panel lost prominence in other ways too. In the past, there were dozens of people reviewing air pollution research for three years. Now, it's seven people doing the review in one year.

"It's a perfect storm," Frey said. "So many things have been changed all at once, and every one of them weakens the process, and collectively it just creates a tremendously weak process that borders on being a total sham."

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on December 12, 2018, 09:33:07 PM
He is basically saying "I submitted it to this industry group to review, but they didn't make any real changes, and I knew they wouldn't, but I submitted it to them anyway, oh, and also, really, I decided long before I wrote up the paper that it wouldn't actually say anything they would object to anyway, seeing as how they bought and paid for me a LONG time ago!"
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on December 13, 2018, 07:04:45 AM
How do you do science on something that you cannot see, yet is everywhere, and is critical for our existence? That way lies madness and discussions about Trinity (not the good kind).
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on December 13, 2018, 07:14:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2018, 07:04:45 AM
How do you do science on something that you cannot see, yet is everywhere, and is critical for our existence? That way lies madness and discussions about Trinity (not the good kind).

Wait, what is the good kind?  The one in New Mexico?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on December 13, 2018, 07:24:53 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 13, 2018, 07:14:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2018, 07:04:45 AM
How do you do science on something that you cannot see, yet is everywhere, and is critical for our existence? That way lies madness and discussions about Trinity (not the good kind).

Wait, what is the good kind?  The one in New Mexico?

:mmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on December 13, 2018, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 28, 2018, 03:01:18 AM
I don't think one should consider the entire government part of the administration.

Agreed.  Just the executive branch of government is part of the administration.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 13, 2018, 09:04:52 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

QuoteThe Oil Industry's Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules

When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them.

But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nation's oil industry.

In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country's largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found.

The campaign's main argument for significantly easing fuel efficiency standards — that the United States is so awash in oil it no longer needs to worry about energy conservation — clashed with decades of federal energy and environmental policy.

"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration's proposed rules incorporate similar logic.

The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world's oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.

In recent months, Marathon Petroleum also teamed up with a secretive policy group within the Koch network, the American Legislative Exchange Council, to draft legislation for states supporting the industry's position. Its proposed resolution, dated Sept. 18, describes current fuel-efficiency rules as "a relic of a disproven narrative of resource scarcity" and says "unelected bureaucrats" shouldn't dictate the cars Americans drive.

A separate industry campaign on Facebook, covertly run by an oil-industry lobby representing Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Phillips 66 and other oil giants, urged people to write to regulators to support the rollback.

The Facebook ads linked to a website with a picture of a grinning Mr. Obama. It asked, "Would YOU buy a used car from this man?" The site appears to have been so effective that a quarter of the 12,000 public comments received by the Department of Transportation can be traced to the petition, according to a Times analysis.

Gary R. Heminger, Marathon's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement that the company supported "sound fuel economy standards" and wanted to "help ensure they are achievable and based on existing technology."

He added, "We appreciate the administration's willingness to conduct a thorough review in order to ensure future standards are achievable and will actually benefit American consumers."

A spokesman for Koch Industries, the energy conglomerate led by Mr. Koch, said the company had "a long, consistent track record of opposing all forms of corporate welfare, including all subsidies, mandates and other handouts that rig the system."

The oil industry's campaign, the details of which have not been previously reported, illuminates why the rollbacks have gone further than the more modest changes automakers originally lobbied for.

The standards that the Trump administration seeks to weaken required automakers to roughly double the fuel economy of new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2025. Instead, the Trump plan would freeze the standards at 2020 levels. Carmakers, for their part, had sought more flexibility in meeting the original 2025 standards, not a categorical rollback.

The Trump plan, if finalized, would increase greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by more than the amount many midsize countries put out in a year and reverse a major effort by the Obama administration to fight climate change.

The energy industry's efforts also help explain the Trump administration's confrontational stance toward California, which, under federal law, has a unique authority to write its own clean-air rules and to mandate more zero-emissions vehicles.

California has pledged to stick to the stricter standards, together with 13 other states that follow its lead. But President Trump's plan challenges California's rule-writing power, setting up a legal battle that threatens to split the American auto market in two.

That is a prospect automakers desperately want to avoid.

But for gasoline producers like Marathon, a shift toward more efficient vehicles poses a grave threat to the bottom line. In October, the company acquired a rival, Andeavor, making it the biggest refiner in the United States, with sales of 16 billion gallons of fuel a year.

Even while doubling down on gasoline, Marathon has projected an environmentally friendly public image. "We have invested billions of dollars to make our operations more energy efficient," Marathon said in a recent report. The company's Twitter account recently highlighted a gardening project and the creation of a duck pond at one of its refineries.

On a conference call with investors last week, Mr. Heminger, the Marathon chief executive, was already counting the extra barrels of fuel a Trump rollback would mean for the industry: 350,000 to 400,000 barrels of gasoline per day, he said.

"However, you have another side who doesn't want to pivot away" from the stricter rules, Mr. Heminger said. "So we have a lot of work to do to keep this momentum going."

Marathon's Early Start

Marathon began its outreach to the Trump administration early, asking to meet with Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency soon after he became its administrator in early 2017. Marathon had been a top donor to Mr. Pruitt in Oklahoma, a state where oil is so prominent that a well stands on the grounds of the capitol building.

"Our CEO, Gary Heminger, would be very glad for an opportunity to visit with the Administrator," a Marathon lobbyist wrote in an email to Mr. Trump's transition team on May 8, 2017. "I believe this would be a constructive dialogue." The E.P.A. helps oversee fuel economy rules along with the Transportation Department.

Mr. Pruitt was scheduled to meet with the Marathon chief at least twice — once in June 2017 as part of a meeting with the board of a powerful fuel-industry group, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and again in September for a more private talk, according to emails and schedules released in a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club.

A Marathon spokesman, Chuck Rice, said Mr. Heminger did not discuss auto-efficiency rollbacks with Mr. Pruitt. An E.P.A. official did not respond to a question about whether the auto rules were discussed.

Marathon then turned its focus to Congress, hiring the firm Ogilvy Government Relations to lobby legislators in Washington on fuel-economy standards, according to Ogilvy's disclosure forms. The firm did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the summer, Marathon representatives also approached legislators about an  industry talking-points letter, according to six people familiar with that effort. The file properties of a Microsoft Word version of one letter, provided by a Congressional delegation, show that it was last edited by a Marathon lobbyist, Michael J. Birsic, on June 11, 2018.

Mr. Rice of Marathon said the company did not write the letter, and the company declined to say who did. It did not offer an explanation for Mr. Birsic's digital fingerprint on the document file.

Nineteen lawmakers from the delegations of Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania sent letters to the Transportation Department that included exact phrases and reasoning from the industry letter. The lawmakers' letters, sent in June and July, all make the point that oil scarcity is no longer a concern.

The Trump administration's proposed rollback echoes the post-conservation theme. While energy conservation is significant, the proposal says, the downside of additional petroleum consumption would be dwarfed by the rollback's benefits.

Representatives from the three state delegations either declined to comment or did not respond to requests.

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, criticized the industry's campaign. "It appears as though oil interests are cynically trying to gin up support in Congress for the weakest possible standards to ensure that cars and SUVs have to rely on even more oil," he said.

"If this attempt is successful, the outcome will be a blow to the auto industry, consumers, and our environment."

The Facebook Campaign

The Facebook ads, featuring Mr. Trump waving alongside the message, "SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT'S CAR FREEDOM AGENDA!," appeared the week after the administration made public its fuel economy plan in August. At least 10 times during the two-month public comment period on the plan, the ads, which did not state their oil industry origins, asked people to write to the government to back weaker emissions standards.

Public comments matter in federal rule-making. The law requires that citizens' views be taken into account before a rule is finalized.

"File an official comment to SUPPORT our President's plan for safer, cheaper cars that WE get to choose," read one ad, which ran for seven days in early October. The ad leads to a page that provides basic language to submit.

More than 3,300 of the 12,000 public comments that D.O.T. has made public contain language identical to that petition, an analysis of the files showed.

The campaign was a product of the fuel and petrochemical manufacturers trade group, widely known as AFPM. However, neither the Facebook ads nor the site identified the industry group. Instead they name a group called Energy4US, which describes itself as "a coalition of consumers, businesses and workers" promoting affordable energy.

Energy4US has close ties to the industry group. According to internet domain records, Victor Adams, listed as an AFPM web manager, registered Energy4Us.org in 2015 using his work email address. Energy4US lists the group as a coalition member, along with about 50 other groups including energy interests, labor groups, a sheriff's association and even a recreational fishing alliance.

The AFPM board includes representatives from Exxon, Chevron, Phillips 66, Marathon and Koch Industries. The companies all referred queries to the group.

Derrick Morgan, a senior vice president at AFPM, said the group "regularly works with policymakers, coalition groups and individuals to promote shared goals," and also will "lead and join groups like Energy4US."

The Department of Transportation said it was "generally aware" that there were groups urging the public to make comments through online campaigns, but said it does not regulate them.

Taking the Fight On the Road

House bill 1593 is just eight words long: "To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards." Koch Industries, a petroleum empire with interests as diverse as gasoline, pipelines, fertilizer and Stainmaster carpets, is the bill's sole corporate backer.

The measure, which would eliminate fuel standards altogether, is not expected to go far. But it underscores the company's stance on the matter. And Koch interests are fighting that battle not only in Washington but increasingly in statehouses and even local policy meetings nationwide.

In Dearborn, Mich., at a September meeting on the Trump fuel-efficiency rollbacks, Annie Patnaude of Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded group, spoke in favor. "This is a step in the right direction to protect consumers and workers against government mandates that would limit choice," she said.

In Iowa, Americans for Prosperity joined the fight over whether to make it easier for gas stations to install chargers for electric vehicles. In Illinois, it discouraged state officials from considering subsidies for electric vehicles.

And last month an Americans for Prosperity representative trekked to a public hearing in Colorado, where regulators were thinking about becoming the 13th state to follow California's stricter standards. The representative, Shari Shiffer-Krieger, a field director for the group, argued that people in the rugged state wanted SUVs, not tighter emissions rules. "Coloradans deserve much better," she said.

The oil industry lost that fight. Colorado allied itself with California.

But Americans for Prosperity said fights like these get to the heart of its free-market philosophy. "We believe in a level playing field so all Americans have the equal opportunity to succeed," said Bill Riggs, a spokesman for the group, in a statement. The organization will keep fighting "mandates that unfairly pick winners and losers in any industry," he said.

Drafting Pro-Oil State Legislation

On August 6, a Marathon lobbyist, Stephen D. Higley, emailed a Wisconsin state representative an explainer of American fuel economy law. The memo didn't mince words.

"It's a relic," the memo said, particularly at a time when the United States was "poised to become the largest oil producer in the world."

The Wisconsin representative, Mike Kuglitsch, participates in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a Koch-funded group that helps companies write model legislation for state lawmakers to use as a basis for their own laws.

Emails obtained by the Times show that Marathon has been working with members of the legislative exchange council to build support for the Trump fuel-efficiency rollback in state legislatures and to denounce California's power to write its own rules for cars. The emails were made public under Wisconsin's open records law to Documented, a watchdog group that tracks corporate influence in public policy.

California's special authority could effectively split the American auto market in two, since 13 other states — representing roughly 35 percent of nationwide car sales — have agreed to follow California's stricter rules. That means automakers might find themselves making cars to two competing standards.

"Who should decide what cars and trucks consumers should buy, consumers themselves or unelected bureaucrats in Sacramento, California or Washington, D.C.?" the memo sent by Marathon said.

In a statement, Bill Meierling of the legislative exchange council said that mandating fuel economy was a rule that "many state legislators believe doesn't make sense for working Americans."

Just days after the emails between Marathon and the Wisconsin lawmaker, some 1,500 state legislators and other officials from across the country gathered in New Orleans to cheer on Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Transportation, at the legislative exchange council's annual convention. Marathon sponsored the event.

The Transportation Department was determined to cut government regulations, said Ms. Chao, a former fellow at the Heritage Foundation, which has received Koch funding and has long opposed the fuel economy rules.

Mr. Trump's proposed rollback, she said, "ranks as one of the most significant regulatory reforms that this administration is undertaking." The room erupted in applause.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on December 13, 2018, 09:08:14 AM
And: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/climate/trump-clean-water-rollback.html?action=click&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=Climate%20and%20Environment

Quote[...]

The clean water rollback is the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration to weaken or undo major environmental rules, including proposals to weaken regulations on planet-warming emissions from cars, power plants and oil and gas drilling rigs, a series of moves designed to speed new drilling in the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and efforts to weaken protections under the Endangered Species Act. This week in Katowice, Poland, at an annual United Nations conference on mitigating global warming, Trump administration officials held an event touting the benefits of fossil fuels.

[...]
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on January 12, 2019, 07:21:39 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwmRPBzX0AA_KcR.jpg)

:hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2019, 05:01:03 AM
And a physics101 explanation of why the increasing concentration of CO2 matters :

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Carbon_dioxide

Totally straighforward, an educated 12-year old could understand the implications.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on January 13, 2019, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2019, 05:01:03 AM
And a physics101 explanation of why the increasing concentration of CO2 matters :

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Carbon_dioxide

Totally straighforward, an educated 12-year old could understand the implications.

Very good.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2019, 09:36:01 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2019, 05:01:03 AM
And a physics101 explanation of why the increasing concentration of CO2 matters :

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Carbon_dioxide

Totally straighforward, an educated 12-year old could understand the implications.

So well beyond the intellectual capabilities of our President.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on January 13, 2019, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2019, 09:36:01 PM
So well beyond the intellectual capabilities of our President.

It's colder in winter, therefore global warming is a hoax!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on January 15, 2019, 09:42:23 PM
The title of the article says it all

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-are-warming-faster-than-predicted/
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on January 15, 2019, 11:39:52 PM
There are times when I am glad I never had children...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on January 16, 2019, 12:01:59 AM
Is there a limit as to the amount of heat that oceans can absorb?  :ph34r:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on January 16, 2019, 12:07:30 AM
Yes. Eventually they would all boil away.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on January 16, 2019, 01:38:08 AM
Quote from: PDH on January 15, 2019, 11:39:52 PM
There are times when I am glad I never had children...

:yes:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on January 18, 2019, 08:07:24 AM
Australians on the boil:

Quote
Australia swelters through record-breaking heatwave18 January 2019 
Share   


Image copyright
AFP/Getty

Australia has just sweltered through at least five of its 10 warmest days on record, authorities estimate.

An extreme heatwave has afflicted the nation since Saturday, causing wildlife deaths, bushfires and an increase in hospital admissions.

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said preliminary readings showed daily national temperature highs of 40C.

The town of Noona in New South Wales meanwhile recorded a night-time temperature of 35.9C.

It was the highest minimum temperature ever recorded anywhere in Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) said.

Temperatures on Friday will soar above 42C in "broad areas", the bureau predicted.

Forecasters have compared conditions to the nation's worst heatwave in 2013, where the mercury soared to 39C for seven consecutive days.

The hottest day on record for Australia is 7 January 2013, when the national average maximum temperature was 40.3C.

"The current heatwave ranks alongside that of January 2013 as the most extensive and prolonged heatwave on record over Australia," BOM senior meteorologist Blair Trewin told the BBC earlier this week.

"There have been other notable heatwaves but none affecting such a large area of the country."


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46886798 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46886798)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on January 18, 2019, 08:09:47 AM
Summer in Australia must be a bitch.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: AnchorClanker on January 19, 2019, 12:58:34 AM
For what it's worth, DC has had the wettest year since the 1880's.  Funny, I thought the fall seemed an awful lot like an Oregon Coast fall...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on January 22, 2019, 11:24:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2019, 09:42:23 PM
The title of the article says it all

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-are-warming-faster-than-predicted/

and since the oceans are warming faster than predicted, I suppose it stands to reason that Greenland's glaciers are also melting faster than previously predicted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/greenland-ice-melting-faster-than-scientists-previously-thought-study
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on January 23, 2019, 08:14:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2019, 11:24:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2019, 09:42:23 PM
The title of the article says it all

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-are-warming-faster-than-predicted/

and since the oceans are warming faster than predicted, I suppose it stands to reason that Greenland's glaciers are also melting faster than previously predicted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/greenland-ice-melting-faster-than-scientists-previously-thought-study

I guess that's why one the best UK boutique labels re-released Waterworld, offering a special edition.  :tinfoil:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on January 29, 2019, 10:14:53 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyFVs_jXQAAfvXx?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on January 29, 2019, 10:16:55 AM
QuoteDonald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can't last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!

QuoteA Science Enthusiast 🚀
@aSciEnthusiast

Replying to
@realDonaldTrump
Glad you asked! The polar vortex is supposed to stay at the north pole but dwindling sea ice (from climate change) has caused the vortex to split in three places, and that's why it's cold down here. Polar vortex splits like this will become more common as climate change worsens.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 11:23:30 AM
That is probably why it is called "Global Warming" and not "Local Regional Warming"
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2019, 12:27:46 PM
You're wasting your breath. Might as well teach a baboon to conduct a symphony orchestra.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: frunk on January 29, 2019, 12:59:04 PM
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png) (https://xkcd.com/1321/)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on January 29, 2019, 08:59:47 PM
"I want you to panic"

Good clear message - greeted by polite applause by the Davos crowd

https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2019/jan/25/i-want-you-to-panic-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-issues-climate-warning-at-davos-video
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 19, 2019, 12:58:34 AM
For what it's worth, DC has had the wettest year since the 1880's.  Funny, I thought the fall seemed an awful lot like an Oregon Coast fall...
It rains constantly here now too.  Haven't had a legit drought in like ten years.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 09:33:01 PM
Yeah I have commented on it a lot in the Weather WTF thread but Fall has been incredibly wet in Texas the last couple years. I find myself wondering if it is a fluke or if warming in the Gulf of Mexico means we are going to get dumped on every (or even most) Autumn moving foward, which would be a major change.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:34:24 PM
I mean don't get me wrong, I would actually like to live in a tropical rainforest climate as long as we can keep all of the giant bugs and shit away. :sleep:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 09:37:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:34:24 PM
I mean don't get me wrong, I would actually like to live in a tropical rainforest climate as long as we can keep all of the giant bugs and shit away. :sleep:

Well our problem is we flood a bunch. We have very rocky soil that does not absorb much water and lots of rivers and creeks everywhere. But that is probably not a problem in a place not sitting on solid blocks of limestone.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:40:16 PM
We sit on limestone too (hence why bourbon is so delicious :) ) but we typically have a big fat layer of clay between our feet and the limestone here.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on January 30, 2019, 01:09:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 29, 2019, 09:37:25 PM
But that is probably not a problem in a place not sitting on solid blocks of limestone.
give it some time.  In a few million years, I'm sure the soil will adjust to these new conditions. ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on January 30, 2019, 01:52:37 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:40:16 PM
We sit on limestone too (hence why bourbon is so delicious :)

I'll bite. How does the limestone improve the liquor?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on January 30, 2019, 02:26:11 AM
Water in limestone areas is usually particularly delicious and tasty. I didn't know that improved whiskey as well though.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Caliga on January 30, 2019, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 30, 2019, 01:52:37 AM
I'll bite. How does the limestone improve the liquor?
I dunno *how*, it just makes the water taste a certain way that is supposed to have a huge impact on the flavor of the finished product.

Isn't that the same reason ales from Burton in England taste good? :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Caliga on January 30, 2019, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 30, 2019, 02:26:11 AM
Water in limestone areas is usually particularly delicious and tasty. I didn't know that improved whiskey as well though.
That's the story at least.  I don't think bourbon is legally required to be made with lime water, but all of the distilleries in Kentucky use local well/spring water which is bound to be very limey.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on January 30, 2019, 02:48:02 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 30, 2019, 02:26:11 AM
Water in limestone areas is usually particularly delicious and tasty. I didn't know that improved whiskey as well though.

Water in limestone areas.  :yucky: :yucky: :yucky:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on January 31, 2019, 03:45:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/aynABv6.jpg)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on January 31, 2019, 12:54:26 PM
I assume that's not from your sister's feed.  :D
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 01, 2019, 09:27:15 AM
Nice retort:

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/NOAAClimate/status/1090263390503596032~/news/world-us-canada-47078054)

Apols if it's already been posted.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 06, 2019, 03:22:41 PM
From the NYTimes today

QuoteNASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth's average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend.

The data means that the five warmest years in recorded history have been the last five, and that 18 of the 19 warmest years ever recorded have occurred since 2001. The quickly rising temperatures over the past two decades cap a much longer warming trend documented by researchers and correspond with the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/06/climate/fourth-hottest-year.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Trumpists - but its cold outside
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:04:31 PM
The good news is humans can cause global cooling.

QuoteThe authors found that disease and war wiped out 90 percent of the indigenous population in the Americas, or about 55 million people. The earth, they argue, then reclaimed the land that these populations left behind. The new vegetation pulled heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and into the land, contributing to what scientists refer to as the "Little Ice Age."

"It was a drastic change in the earth's system," said Alexander Koch, the study's lead author and a Ph.D. candidate at the University College London Department of Geography.


The bad news is that last time it was done, it required a 90% reduction of a population.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/climate/little-ice-age-colonization.html
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Interesting theory, but I was under the impression the Little Ice Age started in the 1300s.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:43:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Interesting theory, but I was under the impression the Little Ice Age started in the 1300s.

odd, is that because it was the first thing that popped up on a google search?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on February 07, 2019, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:43:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Interesting theory, but I was under the impression the Little Ice Age started in the 1300s.

odd, is that because it was the first thing that popped up on a google search?

:unsure:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:43:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Interesting theory, but I was under the impression the Little Ice Age started in the 1300s.

odd, is that because it was the first thing that popped up on a google search?

No. I recall a discussion about it in Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror, which was when I first heard of it. I recall hearing that climate change was an explanation for how the first Nordic colonies in Greenland disappeared around the same period.

But that is history stuff and not strictly climate science.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:55:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:43:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Interesting theory, but I was under the impression the Little Ice Age started in the 1300s.

odd, is that because it was the first thing that popped up on a google search?

No. I recall a discussion about it in Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror, which was when I first heard of it. I recall hearing that as an explanation for how the first Nordic colonies in Greenland disappeared.

But that is history stuff and not strictly climate science.

Interesting.  From the article there seems to be a debate about it being as long as 1400-1900 - but that would bring it further back in time.

The part that is salient though is the reduction they found in CO2 in the atmosphere after colonization.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on February 08, 2019, 05:46:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:53:01 PM
No. I recall a discussion about it in Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror, which was when I first heard of it. I recall hearing that climate change was an explanation for how the first Nordic colonies in Greenland disappeared around the same period.

That's the context in which I first heard the term, as well.  Tuchman was confusing the end of the Medieval warming period with the Little Ice Age, though.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on February 08, 2019, 05:56:13 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2019, 05:46:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:53:01 PM
No. I recall a discussion about it in Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror, which was when I first heard of it. I recall hearing that climate change was an explanation for how the first Nordic colonies in Greenland disappeared around the same period.

That's the context in which I first heard the term, as well.  Tuchman was confusing the end of the Medieval warming period with the Little Ice Age, though.

Well, one person's end of warming is the other's start of cooling. I am sure some species will be thrilled by the glasshouse Earth we are creating, for example.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Threviel on February 08, 2019, 09:18:58 AM
Well, there was a huge depopulation event in the 1300s also, although in the old world, might have started the process.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 10:22:15 AM
Without commenting on the idea that this is an example, I've never really understood the reluctance that some people have to the idea that human activity can change the global environment/climate.

That part isn't that complicated at all. The globe is a basically closed system. It is a giant test tube. But it isn't really that big. We can measure the increase in CO2 for example, and surprise surprise, if we pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up in a clearly measurable way.

The Earth is pretty big...but on the other hand, it really isn't that big. It is a closed system, and doing anything within the system that has a measurable impact on the composition of that system is creating change.

Obviously understanding how it changes is complex, even moreso *predicting* those changes. But there isn't anything magical about it - it is just science. We started thinking about it, what 50, 60 years ago? Hell, I think we've made amazing progress since then considering it was essentially a brand new field of study in many ways. But the basic idea is pretty straightforward. We have a closed system, and we are creating measurable changes, and we need to understand what those changes will do....

I just do not understand the idea that there is skepticism around the very idea that humans could change the earths climate.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 10:25:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:55:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:43:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Interesting theory, but I was under the impression the Little Ice Age started in the 1300s.

odd, is that because it was the first thing that popped up on a google search?

No. I recall a discussion about it in Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror, which was when I first heard of it. I recall hearing that as an explanation for how the first Nordic colonies in Greenland disappeared.

But that is history stuff and not strictly climate science.

Interesting.  From the article there seems to be a debate about it being as long as 1400-1900 - but that would bring it further back in time.

The part that is salient though is the reduction they found in CO2 in the atmosphere after colonization.

Well I mean if you think about it a bit the Mongols also killed millions and spread the black death with also killed tens of millions. If tens of millions dying can bring about a reduction in CO2 then why wouldn't a previous reduction in population not do the same?

But, as you say, this discovery does not exactly give us a clear way forward  :ph34r:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 10:27:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 10:25:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:55:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2019, 04:43:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2019, 04:39:46 PM
Interesting theory, but I was under the impression the Little Ice Age started in the 1300s.

odd, is that because it was the first thing that popped up on a google search?

No. I recall a discussion about it in Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror, which was when I first heard of it. I recall hearing that as an explanation for how the first Nordic colonies in Greenland disappeared.

But that is history stuff and not strictly climate science.

Interesting.  From the article there seems to be a debate about it being as long as 1400-1900 - but that would bring it further back in time.

The part that is salient though is the reduction they found in CO2 in the atmosphere after colonization.

Well I mean if you think about it a bit the Mongols also killed millions and spread the black death with also killed tens of millions. If tens of millions dying can bring about a reduction in CO2 then why wouldn't a previous reduction in population not do the same?

Because it isn't the killing that does it, it is the returning land to its native state.

If the Mongols killing a few tens of millions didn't result in the depopulation of large areas that then over several decades returned to a state without human agriculture, it would not have the same effect.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 10:33:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 10:27:22 AM
Because it isn't the killing that does it, it is the returning land to its native state.

If the Mongols killing a few tens of millions didn't result in the depopulation of large areas that then over several decades returned to a state without human agriculture, it would not have the same effect.

Yes. Though there is some indication that did happen. But he Black Death does not seem to have a mortality rate quite as extreme as what seems to have happened in the New World. And though people talk about how the Mongols destroyed massive amounts of peasants and left lots of land to fallow it may not have been on the same scale. They did destroy lots of ancient irrigation systems that never got repaired as well.

Though I find it surprising pre-modern agriculture can have a noticeable impact on the climate like that.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on February 08, 2019, 11:06:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 10:33:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 10:27:22 AM
Because it isn't the killing that does it, it is the returning land to its native state.

If the Mongols killing a few tens of millions didn't result in the depopulation of large areas that then over several decades returned to a state without human agriculture, it would not have the same effect.

Yes. Though there is some indication that did happen. But he Black Death does not seem to have a mortality rate quite as extreme as what seems to have happened in the New World. And though people talk about how the Mongols destroyed massive amounts of peasants and left lots of land to fallow it may not have been on the same scale. They did destroy lots of ancient irrigation systems that never got repaired as well.

Though I find it surprising pre-modern agriculture can have a noticeable impact on the climate like that.

It probably isn't just the "return land to native state" that did it, but the lack of slash-and-burn.

I would assume a lot of native peoples in NA used 'slash and burn' agriculture. This is a type where, to clear a plot for growing, you use a controlled burn of the forest. The burned tree trunks are left standing, the ash makes fertilizer; after a few years you have to leave it fallow and burn another plot.   

This is commonly used in central America and SE Asia to this day. It releases lots of smoke ... plus the deforestation lasts for years. This creates lots of carbon emissions, enhancing global warming.

https://www.wn.org/climate-change-indonesias-slash-burn-agroforestry-can-help/

Point is that different types of agriculture have different effects. The Mongols smashed irrigation in Persia, leading to not reforestation, but desert-creation: less carbon was soaked up by vegetation (as there was now desert where there used to be crops), so killing all those people did not tend to prevent global warming. In contrast, assuming pre-Columbian NA natives used slash and burn (which is likely - as clearing forest without metal axes or draught animals to pull stumps and haul logs is really tough), killing them was a net benefit in terms of reducing global warming. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire_in_ecosystems
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on February 08, 2019, 11:23:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 10:22:15 AM
Without commenting on the idea that this is an example, I've never really understood the reluctance that some people have to the idea that human activity can change the global environment/climate.

That part isn't that complicated at all. The globe is a basically closed system. It is a giant test tube. But it isn't really that big. We can measure the increase in CO2 for example, and surprise surprise, if we pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up in a clearly measurable way.

The Earth is pretty big...but on the other hand, it really isn't that big. It is a closed system, and doing anything within the system that has a measurable impact on the composition of that system is creating change.

Obviously understanding how it changes is complex, even moreso *predicting* those changes. But there isn't anything magical about it - it is just science. We started thinking about it, what 50, 60 years ago? Hell, I think we've made amazing progress since then considering it was essentially a brand new field of study in many ways. But the basic idea is pretty straightforward. We have a closed system, and we are creating measurable changes, and we need to understand what those changes will do....

I just do not understand the idea that there is skepticism around the very idea that humans could change the earths climate.

I can, easily.

Climate is not something that is on a human scale. Humans are not good at integrating things that are not to their scale, especially time scales.

Also, vast majority of people think there's a God(s) that created the earth for us, how can we affect what God(s) has done?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2019, 11:06:41 AM
Point is that different types of agriculture have different effects. The Mongols smashed irrigation in Persia, leading to not reforestation, but desert-creation: less carbon was soaked up by vegetation (as there was now desert where there used to be crops), so killing all those people did not tend to prevent global warming. In contrast, assuming pre-Columbian NA natives used slash and burn (which is likely - as clearing forest without metal axes or draught animals to pull stumps and haul logs is really tough), killing them was a net benefit in terms of reducing global warming. 

Damn. Well with all this anti-Vaxing going on maybe we can depopulate North America with small pox and measles again soon.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on February 08, 2019, 11:33:13 AM
So what do you guys think of the New Green Deal?  Love it or shove it?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Savonarola on February 08, 2019, 12:02:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2019, 11:33:13 AM
So what do you guys think of the New Green Deal?  Love it or shove it?

I think Nancy Pelosi told us all we need to know about it in her interview in Politico (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/pelosi-trump-government-shutdown-1154355):

QuoteThe California Democrat did agree to launch a select committee on climate change, similar to the one she created back in 2007, when she first became speaker. Pelosi said Wednesday, however, the panel would not be tasked with writing a specific bill, and brushed off the idea of the Green New Deal as a "suggestion."

"It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive," Pelosi said. "The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they're for it right?"

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2019, 11:33:13 AM
So what do you guys think of the New Green Deal?  Love it or shove it?

I don't know exactly what that is. It sort of sounds like doing Tennessee Valley Authority type stuff to help the environment?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on February 08, 2019, 12:18:39 PM
Reminds us that old Democrats are no better than old & new Republicans.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on February 08, 2019, 12:48:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 12:09:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 08, 2019, 11:33:13 AM
So what do you guys think of the New Green Deal?  Love it or shove it?

I don't know exactly what that is. It sort of sounds like doing Tennessee Valley Authority type stuff to help the environment?

Read up when you have a moment: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline

A few of the nuttier suggestions: getting rid of air travel in favor of high speed rail, a guaranteed (hopefully green) job for everyone, "access to nature" (didn't realize we didn't already have that), upgrading or rebuilding all existing buildings to make them more green, offering "economic security" to those "unwilling to work"
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 12:59:11 PM
That bill all but admits it would be putting us on a kind of war mobilization effort. Obviously I would like some sort of process to reduce emissions and develop carbon capture technology to offset what emissions we do have but...I don't know. It seems really extreme and full of fluff. Maybe we could convince Canada to do it first and see if it works.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on February 08, 2019, 02:26:32 PM
I read it. About half (hard to quantify) is pretty irrelevant to climate change.

I think that what AOC and co want is to get the dems running in 2020 to endorse greener ideas. Smart.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2019, 02:26:32 PM
I read it. About half (hard to quantify) is pretty irrelevant to climate change.

I think that what AOC and co want is to get the dems running in 2020 to endorse greener ideas. Smart.

It is a good idea but it is smart politically? We probably want 2020 to be a referendum on Trump and not a referendum on Climate Change....unless we are sure to win that referendum.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2019, 02:32:54 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2019, 02:26:32 PM
I read it. About half (hard to quantify) is pretty irrelevant to climate change.

I think that what AOC and co want is to get the dems running in 2020 to endorse greener ideas. Smart.

Yeah, it includes medicare for all and jobs for all.

I think doing stuff like that trivializes environmental issues by making them just another political talking point, and makes it easier for right wingers to unfortunately ignore climate change as just another left wing idea.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2019, 02:32:54 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2019, 02:26:32 PM
I read it. About half (hard to quantify) is pretty irrelevant to climate change.

I think that what AOC and co want is to get the dems running in 2020 to endorse greener ideas. Smart.

Yeah, it includes medicare for all and jobs for all.

I think doing stuff like that trivializes environmental issues by making them just another political talking point, and makes it easier for right wingers to unfortunately ignore climate change as just another left wing idea.

Excellent point. I mean I am all for a plan to get us to a carbon neutral state, and hopefully whatever is developed can have substantial bipartisan support so it has a chance in hell of being put into effect, but it should probably be an initiative separate from social welfare issues.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 03:07:11 PM
Yeah,gotta agree. It makes an issue that should be a-political explicitly political.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 08, 2019, 03:27:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 08, 2019, 02:26:32 PM
I read it. About half (hard to quantify) is pretty irrelevant to climate change.

I think that what AOC and co want is to get the dems running in 2020 to endorse greener ideas. Smart.

It is a good idea but it is smart politically? We probably want 2020 to be a referendum on Trump and not a referendum on Climate Change....unless we are sure to win that referendum.

The political judgment is the key.  Hopefully most Americans are agreed that climate change is a pressing problem and that reasonable policies will be developed in response.  I read the Green New Deal as an affirmational document which outlines what can be done which might make it easier for other policies to be viewed as moderate and therefore more politically saleable.  But if the scientists are right, we are running out of time.

And there is no reason to doubt they are incorrect.  So if the political judgment here is wrong, it could be fatal - literally.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2019, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 10:33:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 10:27:22 AM
Because it isn't the killing that does it, it is the returning land to its native state.

If the Mongols killing a few tens of millions didn't result in the depopulation of large areas that then over several decades returned to a state without human agriculture, it would not have the same effect.

Yes. Though there is some indication that did happen. But he Black Death does not seem to have a mortality rate quite as extreme as what seems to have happened in the New World. And though people talk about how the Mongols destroyed massive amounts of peasants and left lots of land to fallow it may not have been on the same scale. They did destroy lots of ancient irrigation systems that never got repaired as well.

Though I find it surprising pre-modern agriculture can have a noticeable impact on the climate like that.


It's possible that mortality rates of disease in the New World have been exaggerated...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 03:56:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2019, 03:42:21 PM
It's possible that mortality rates of disease in the New World have been exaggerated...

They are very rough estimates to be sure.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Barrister on February 08, 2019, 04:20:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2019, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2019, 10:33:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 10:27:22 AM
Because it isn't the killing that does it, it is the returning land to its native state.

If the Mongols killing a few tens of millions didn't result in the depopulation of large areas that then over several decades returned to a state without human agriculture, it would not have the same effect.

Yes. Though there is some indication that did happen. But he Black Death does not seem to have a mortality rate quite as extreme as what seems to have happened in the New World. And though people talk about how the Mongols destroyed massive amounts of peasants and left lots of land to fallow it may not have been on the same scale. They did destroy lots of ancient irrigation systems that never got repaired as well.

Though I find it surprising pre-modern agriculture can have a noticeable impact on the climate like that.


It's possible that mortality rates of disease in the New World have been exaggerated...

It's also quite possible they've been under-estimated.

Pre-columbian population estimates are very hotly debated.  Pretty sure we've even discussed it here.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2019, 04:34:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2019, 03:27:26 PM
But if the scientists are right, we are running out of time.

And there is no reason to doubt they are incorrect.

Oh, good. Had me worried for a second.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2019, 05:34:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2019, 04:20:37 PM


It's also quite possible they've been under-estimated.

Pre-columbian population estimates are very hotly debated.  Pretty sure we've even discussed it here.


Probably not.  The numbers that get tossed about are always the very high estimates.  For instance numbers for Cahokia are always given the highest number possible,  40,000.  All other estimates are lower, some much, much lower like a 1/5th of that number.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on February 08, 2019, 05:36:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2019, 03:27:26 PM

The political judgment is the key.  Hopefully most Americans are agreed that climate change is a pressing problem and that reasonable policies will be developed in response. 

Unfortunately the time for reasonable, measured responses has long passed, it's too late. All remaining reasonable responses will be increasingly extreme.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on February 08, 2019, 06:38:13 PM
Does the sort of rage that Climate Change discussion appear in other countries or is this just an American thing.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on February 08, 2019, 06:58:00 PM
Pretty universal in western countries I think. IMO.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 11, 2019, 03:54:37 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2019, 04:34:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2019, 03:27:26 PM
But if the scientists are right, we are running out of time.

And there is no reason to doubt they are incorrect.

Oh, good. Had me worried for a second.

Doh!

Quote from: Maladict on February 08, 2019, 05:36:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2019, 03:27:26 PM

The political judgment is the key.  Hopefully most Americans are agreed that climate change is a pressing problem and that reasonable policies will be developed in response. 

Unfortunately the time for reasonable, measured responses has long passed, it's too late. All remaining reasonable responses will be increasingly extreme.

I am not sure where we are on that continuum but I agree the time we have to implement public policy measures that are less extreme is fast coming to an end.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 03:07:11 PM
Yeah,gotta agree. It makes an issue that should be a-political explicitly political.

I'm not really sure what you meant here. I agree that it ought to be sort of an apolitical problem, and I also agree that the AOC "Green New Deal" seems to have everything and a kitchen sink and a hat for everyone in it which may be muddying the waters a bit, a bit "wooly" from a policy perspective as they say in the old country.

I think its great though that shes pushing hard on the issue, and hopefully dragging the Democratic leadership with her to a more aggressive posture. I think having another round of tepid committees produce some really anemic lobbyist friendly stuff a couple of years down the road isn't doing anything at all really. Just more of the same. I think that's where Pelosi is.

But climate change and how we are going to respond is intensely political already, and it was made that way by conservative media and the Republican party. They aren't going to change their minds anytime soon, and apparently the clock has been running against us for quite some time. I think if we continue to do nothing and wait for conservatives to come around or capitalism to save us then it's going to be a miserable future. I think it might be better to just try to press on without them.

What's sort of fascinating to me is how Climate change denial became such a central policy plank for conservatives. It's really odd in some respects. Why isn't clean air and the enviroment a conservative platform? Solar power ? There's no really compelling reason why they shouldn't be.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:25:38 PM
I'd just like to throw this question out to the Languish-verse; What can be done about climate change? What ought be our best approach and what are the possible approaches? In terms of politics and engineering and so forth.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:25:38 PM
I'd just like to throw this question out to the Languish-verse; What can be done about climate change? What ought be our best approach and what are the possible approaches? In terms of politics and engineering and so forth.

Energy storage and new emissionless energy technology. Battery technology is the most important in the short term. Natural Gas is the stopgap. Coal and other dirty energy sources need to be stopped entirely. Only electric vehicles should be legal to produce as soon as is feasible.

And after all that we probably need to increase minimum energy efficiency standards on new buildings and appliances.

Carbon capture technology will need to be developed to offset any emissions we just cannot eliminate.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 11, 2019, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2019, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:25:38 PM
I'd just like to throw this question out to the Languish-verse; What can be done about climate change? What ought be our best approach and what are the possible approaches? In terms of politics and engineering and so forth.

Energy storage and new emissionless energy technology. Battery technology is the most important in the short term. Natural Gas is the stopgap. Coal and other dirty energy sources need to be stopped entirely. Only electric vehicles should be legal to produce as soon as is feasible.

And after all that we probably need to increase minimum energy efficiency standards on new buildings and appliances.

Carbon capture technology will need to be developed to offset any emissions we just cannot eliminate.

All well and good but what's the answer to the ever expanding burn off of kerosene in the stratosphere? 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on February 11, 2019, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:25:38 PM
I'd just like to throw this question out to the Languish-verse; What can be done about climate change? What ought be our best approach and what are the possible approaches? In terms of politics and engineering and so forth.

Political elimination of certain topics. IE, making it as palatable to be a climate change-denier as it is to be in favor of, say, slavery.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 11, 2019, 10:40:51 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 03:07:11 PM
Yeah,gotta agree. It makes an issue that should be a-political explicitly political.
.....
What's sort of fascinating to me is how Climate change denial became such a central policy plank for conservatives. It's really odd in some respects. Why isn't clean air and the enviroment a conservative platform? Solar power ? There's no really compelling reason why they shouldn't be.
....

They don't want to be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, it's free to do what they want, when and where they want without censure or moderation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:44:07 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 11, 2019, 10:38:38 PM

Political elimination of certain topics. IE, making it as palatable to be a climate change-denier as it is to be in favor of, say, slavery.

Oh, we are trending for slavery to be making a comeback in a couple more election cycles on current form.  ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on February 11, 2019, 10:48:23 PM
When I was in grad school James G. Watt (Reagon's former Secretary of the Interior) gave a talk and an informal luncheon with us lowly grads.  He told us that God would not let man destroy the environment unless it was bringing on the End of Times.  He was scary.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on February 11, 2019, 11:36:46 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2019, 10:48:23 PM
(Reagon's former Secretary of the Interior)

Reagon Targaryen?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on February 11, 2019, 11:55:57 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on February 12, 2019, 06:24:55 AM
Quote from: fromtia on February 11, 2019, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2019, 03:07:11 PM
Yeah,gotta agree. It makes an issue that should be a-political explicitly political.

But climate change and how we are going to respond is intensely political already, and it was made that way by conservative media and the Republican party. They aren't going to change their minds anytime soon, and apparently the clock has been running against us for quite some time. I think if we continue to do nothing and wait for conservatives to come around or capitalism to save us then it's going to be a miserable future. I think it might be better to just try to press on without them.

What's sort of fascinating to me is how Climate change denial became such a central policy plank for conservatives. It's really odd in some respects. Why isn't clean air and the enviroment a conservative platform? Solar power ? There's no really compelling reason why they shouldn't be.

I was going to say something like this, climate change and action against it is already a fiercely political and partisan issue in the US, waiting for some kind of magical consensus to appear is disingenious when one of the sides is adamantly against doing almost anything at all and is just willfully blind to facts. I have no idea about that that Green New Deal stuff includes, but somebody giving that debate a kick in the butt to get it started in the US at high political level is more than welcomed.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on February 12, 2019, 06:37:40 AM
Whatever chance ever existed for the US right to accept climate change as a thing is long gone. They (or the parts holding power)  are going for the most retarded and confrontional stances on everything else. Why would they be any different on climate change?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on February 12, 2019, 11:57:33 AM
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0300-3

QuoteAbstract

Knowledge of the ice thickness distribution of the world's glaciers is a fundamental prerequisite for a range of studies. Projections of future glacier change, estimates of the available freshwater resources or assessments of potential sea-level rise all need glacier ice thickness to be accurately constrained. Previous estimates of global glacier volumes are mostly based on scaling relations between glacier area and volume, and only one study provides global-scale information on the ice thickness distribution of individual glaciers. Here we use an ensemble of up to five models to provide a consensus estimate for the ice thickness distribution of all the about 215,000 glaciers outside the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The models use principles of ice flow dynamics to invert for ice thickness from surface characteristics. We find a total volume of 158 ± 41 × 103 km3, which is equivalent to 0.32 ± 0.08 m of sea-level change when the fraction of ice located below present-day sea level (roughly 15%) is subtracted. Our results indicate that High Mountain Asia hosts about 27% less glacier ice than previously suggested, and imply that the timing by which the region is expected to lose half of its present-day glacier area has to be moved forward by about one decade.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on February 12, 2019, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 11, 2019, 11:36:46 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2019, 10:48:23 PM
(Reagon's former Secretary of the Interior)

Reagon Targaryen?

Fine - Reagun
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on February 12, 2019, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 12, 2019, 11:57:33 AM
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0300-3

QuoteAbstract

Knowledge of the ice thickness distribution of the world's glaciers is a fundamental prerequisite for a range of studies. Projections of future glacier change, estimates of the available freshwater resources or assessments of potential sea-level rise all need glacier ice thickness to be accurately constrained. Previous estimates of global glacier volumes are mostly based on scaling relations between glacier area and volume, and only one study provides global-scale information on the ice thickness distribution of individual glaciers. Here we use an ensemble of up to five models to provide a consensus estimate for the ice thickness distribution of all the about 215,000 glaciers outside the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The models use principles of ice flow dynamics to invert for ice thickness from surface characteristics. We find a total volume of 158 ± 41 × 103 km3, which is equivalent to 0.32 ± 0.08 m of sea-level change when the fraction of ice located below present-day sea level (roughly 15%) is subtracted. Our results indicate that High Mountain Asia hosts about 27% less glacier ice than previously suggested, and imply that the timing by which the region is expected to lose half of its present-day glacier area has to be moved forward by about one decade.


I admit I don't get the alarm on this. I mean sure the glacier will go away more quickly than anticipated, but that's because it holds less water than anticipated, isn't it? So we are still fucked, but not more fucked than we thought we were.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on February 12, 2019, 12:03:22 PM
Many glaciers are important reservoirs of fresh water:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/people.html
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on February 12, 2019, 12:05:45 PM
Ah, right, forgot about that, thanks.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 12:12:44 PM
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/2/8/green-new-deal (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/2/8/green-new-deal)

QuoteThursday morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY 14th District) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) released a resolution outlining their much-buzzed-about Green New Deal—a proposed large-scale effort to create jobs and address income inequality through federal government spending on programs that would help America curtail its emission of greenhouse gases by drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels. The outline comes following months of discussion of the concept on Capitol Hill and beyond. You can read it here.

The proposal is sweeping. It's idealistic. And, we can't help but notice, it doesn't really talk about one of the biggest factors in carbon emissions: urban land use.

Like... at all...

We're not the only ones who noticed this, of course. Vox's David Roberts pointed it out in his thorough review of the resolution. And Strong Towns member Alex Baca wrote an in-depth take for Slate on this very issue. An excerpt:

But the Green New Deal has a big blind spot: It doesn't address the places Americans live. And our physical geography—where we sleep, work, shop, worship, and send our kids to play, and how we move between those places—is more foundational to a green, fair future than just about anything else. The proposal encapsulates the liberal delusion on climate change: that technology and spending can spare us the hard work of reform.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 12:35:28 PM
Quotewhere we sleep, work, shop, worship, and send our kids to play, and how we move between those places

City planning and zoning may be a bit outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

QuoteThe proposal encapsulates the liberal delusion on climate change: that technology and spending can spare us the hard work of reform.

Yeah you are probably never going to get us to endorse intense social control except under very extreme circumstances. It kind of goes against everything we stand for. I mean what if somebody doesn't want to change where they sleep, work, shop, worship, and send their kids to play? We have to force them. Liberals, myself included, lack the stomach for that.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on February 12, 2019, 02:24:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 12:35:28 PM
Yeah you are probably never going to get us to endorse intense social control except under very extreme circumstances. It kind of goes against everything we stand for. I mean what if somebody doesn't want to change where they sleep, work, shop, worship, and send their kids to play? We have to force them. Liberals, myself included, lack the stomach for that.

I don't understand this argument, as if the only other alternative to laissez-faire was statist totalitarianism. We force people to do what they do not want all the time - like pay their taxes, or dump toxic waste in reserves of potable water (oh wait). What people want is heavily conditioned by what is actually available to them, and the milieu they grew up in. This article's critique (probably misplaced, as you note), is not about picking people's churches for them. It's about curtailing urban sprawl and stopping urban planning to be at the mercy of real estate developers (who are hardly spokespeople for what 'people want').
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:34:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 12:35:28 PM
Quotewhere we sleep, work, shop, worship, and send our kids to play, and how we move between those places

City planning and zoning may be a bit outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.


Of course, as it should be. The author does go on to state the same thing more or less but then point out ways in which they believe 'federal incentives profoundly shape local land use already'.

Strong Towns are sort of an interesting bunch. I got involved in advocating for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the small town I live in a few years ago, attending the city council meetings and so on. A total nightmare. But it did leave me with a real interest in how our towns, cities and infrastructure get planned, built and paid for and by whom. Strong Towns essentially believe in incrementalism, and generally oppose large infrastructure projects. They also strive to be sort of apolitical, in as much as one can, so I think they came at the critique of the GND deliberately spicy like.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:38:40 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 12, 2019, 02:24:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 12:35:28 PM
Yeah you are probably never going to get us to endorse intense social control except under very extreme circumstances. It kind of goes against everything we stand for. I mean what if somebody doesn't want to change where they sleep, work, shop, worship, and send their kids to play? We have to force them. Liberals, myself included, lack the stomach for that.

I don't understand this argument, as if the only other alternative to laissez-faire was statist totalitarianism. We force people to do what they do not want all the time - like pay their taxes, or dump toxic waste in reserves of potable water (oh wait). What people want is heavily conditioned by what is actually available to them, and the milieu they grew up in. This article's critique (probably misplaced, as you note), is not about picking people's churches for them. It's about curtailing urban sprawl and stopping urban planning to be at the mercy of real estate developers (who are hardly spokespeople for what 'people want').

First of all passing laws preventing you from doing things is very different from radically changing what you are already doing. I mean having you pay your taxes versus you have to move because we are leveling your subdivision is very different.

The quote sounded like changing already existing urban land use, not curtailing future planning. Reforming future planning can already be done in city government. That is not "hard work of reform". That is the normal work of reform Liberals have already been doing for decades.

Though I guess in that vein I should mention that Austin has worked diligently for two decades now trying to increase urban density and curtail the sprawl. Minsky has (and maybe you as well? I don't recall) pointed out how rather ineffective this is as the more high rises and urban density they build the more unaffordable it becomes. People like me are then pushed into surrounding suburban towns. So I don't know how effective it actually is. But how would that sort of urban planning be done on a Federal level?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:40:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 12:35:28 PM
Quotewhere we sleep, work, shop, worship, and send our kids to play, and how we move between those places

City planning and zoning may be a bit outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

QuoteThe proposal encapsulates the liberal delusion on climate change: that technology and spending can spare us the hard work of reform.

Yeah you are probably never going to get us to endorse intense social control except under very extreme circumstances. It kind of goes against everything we stand for. I mean what if somebody doesn't want to change where they sleep, work, shop, worship, and send their kids to play? We have to force them. Liberals, myself included, lack the stomach for that.


Dont think anyone was or is suggesting a sort of einsatzgruppen of libs descending on towns and cities across the land and throwing real americans out of their homes. I think it is absolutely important to start thinking about changing the way we do things like build towns and cities and infrastructure rather then just take an approach of business as usual, but the cars and trucks will be electric.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:47:21 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:34:26 PM
Of course, as it should be. The author does go on to state the same thing more or less but then point out ways in which they believe 'federal incentives profoundly shape local land use already'.

Strong Towns are sort of an interesting bunch. I got involved in advocating for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the small town I live in a few years ago, attending the city council meetings and so on. A total nightmare. But it did leave me with a real interest in how our towns, cities and infrastructure get planned, built and paid for and by whom. Strong Towns essentially believe in incrementalism, and generally oppose large infrastructure projects. They also strive to be sort of apolitical, in as much as one can, so I think they came at the critique of the GND deliberately spicy like.

Gotcha. I guess I am not aware of how federal incentives impact urban planning. I can see how, for example, federal tax credits influence the building of wind farms out in rural areas. So if there is some sort of federal incentive currently discouraging one sort of urban planning over another than perhaps that might need to be reformed to encourage another type.

Also I can see why they seemed to think that urban planning was so "foundational" to combating climate change. It is their particular focus, so naturally they want us to believe it is the most important issue.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:49:53 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:40:31 PM
Dont think anyone was or is suggesting a sort of einsatzgruppen of libs descending on towns and cities across the land and throwing real americans out of their homes.

I was thrown off by their strong language and accusations that Liberals are not ready for big tough choices.

QuoteI think it is absolutely important to start thinking about changing the way we do things like build towns and cities and infrastructure rather then just take an approach of business as usual, but the cars and trucks will be electric.

I think many cities have been thinking about that and have been for a very long time. To the best of my knowledge nobody has yet to develop something we can all point to and say "there, that is what the solution is"
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:56:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:49:53 PM

I think many cities have been thinking about that and have been for a very long time. To the best of my knowledge nobody has yet to develop something we can all point to and say "there, that is what the solution is"

I'm not aware of a single solution to having better towns and cities either but I am more or less a fan of Strong Towns and their general approach. A part of what they advocate for strongly is robust citizen participation in municipal planning, something which I have had an (unpleasant) taste of. I think that's a really important part of a better functioning democracy and a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:56:14 PM
a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.

Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:58:48 PM


Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?

Well just in the broadest sense, I think that if people participate in politics and planning at the simplest local level, questions like "should we have a bicycle lane, or should it be more Death Race 2000?" are a great way to get involved and actually have conversations with other people and organize meetings and things and discover the delight of being able in some small way to move the lever of power in your neighborhood.

If people can go from there to more fully participating at the state and federal level, more than just a popularity contest every four years with a lot of myth and emotion then yes I think that's for the best because I don't think people are so nihilistic that they'll decide to just flush civilization down the toilet because free markets or something.

I think learning to participate fully and having a less atomized culture is a steep learning curve, but I think its important.

And sure, there will be lots and lots of NIMBYs, there already are and they are a nightmare. Not sure what to do about them other than to organize more reasonable people in larger numbers around them. It's possible to do in a democracy one would hope, even though the NIMBYs often seem to be the most well off with the best resources.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Barrister on February 12, 2019, 03:22:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:56:14 PM
a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.

Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on February 12, 2019, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2019, 03:22:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2019, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 12, 2019, 02:56:14 PM
a better functioning democracy is an important part of addressing climate change, I think.

Why? Wouldn't that typically result in NIMBYism?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 04:10:47 AM
On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 07:33:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 04:10:47 AM
On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.


:lmfao:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 13, 2019, 08:11:04 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 04:10:47 AM
On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.

I don't disagree.

Also us as individuals should modify our behaviour, now.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on February 13, 2019, 08:21:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 07:33:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 04:10:47 AM
On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.


:lmfao:

An excellent and incisive intellectual response.  When Berkut sees these, he cannot criticize it as he properly does the facile and intellectually lazy one-smiley responses.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on February 13, 2019, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2019, 08:21:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 07:33:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 04:10:47 AM
On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.


:lmfao:

An excellent and incisive intellectual response.  When Berkut sees these, he cannot criticize it as he properly does the facile and intellectually lazy one-smiley responses.  :thumbsup:

I could be wrong, but I read that as 'skepticism that we, as a society, have the collective foresight and strength of will to do this'.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 13, 2019, 09:21:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2019, 09:13:37 AM

I could be wrong, but I read that as 'skepticism that we, as a society, have the collective foresight and strength of will to do this'.

Yes that's how I read it or he could have selected a clearer smilie like :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on February 13, 2019, 09:43:08 AM
Why leap to the simpler explanation when a more convoluted one that lets you hurl insults is available?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on February 13, 2019, 01:16:38 PM
So McConnell is going to schedule a vote on the Green New Deal.  The bill's Senate sponsor (Markey, D-MA) is hacked off about it, calling it "sabotage" :lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on February 13, 2019, 01:47:12 PM
On the face of it, I support McConnell on this. Why shouldn't the GND be brought to a floor vote? Are the Democrats irate that they haven't been given enough time to sell it, or...?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maximus on February 13, 2019, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2019, 08:59:47 PM
"I want you to panic"

Good clear message - greeted by polite applause by the Davos crowd

https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2019/jan/25/i-want-you-to-panic-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-issues-climate-warning-at-davos-video
It's a good message, made the more impressive by the fact that she has autism and selective mutism. She's done a TED talk as well.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 13, 2019, 01:53:15 PM
Quote from: Maximus on February 13, 2019, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2019, 08:59:47 PM
"I want you to panic"

Good clear message - greeted by polite applause by the Davos crowd

https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2019/jan/25/i-want-you-to-panic-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-issues-climate-warning-at-davos-video
It's a good message, made the more impressive by the fact that she has autism and selective mutism. She's done a TED talk as well.

Most of us olds have failed the place.

Hoping the younger ones don't become as cynical as my generation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 02:19:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 13, 2019, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2019, 08:21:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 07:33:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 04:10:47 AM
On the transport side, you can go electric, but the effect is limited if power generation still relies heavily on fossil fuels.  You burn indirectly instead of directly. So the trick is replacing coal and oil generation with say nuclear and solar. But it's very hard to change the energy generation mix in a material way very quickly.  Power generation facilities have high capital costs and fairly long lead times to construct so unless you are willing to make massive Manhattan Project style commitments it is hard to meaningfully move the energy mix over short periods of time. That is especially true for nuclear: the plants take years and years to build and commission, cost gobs of money, and face bottlenecks due to the loss of qualified engineers during the lost decades.  Solar is a bit easier but the tricky part is you need to find a site that is reasonable near existing transmission lines and places where there is demand. The best places to site solar are on dry level land. But a lot of the energy demand is in damp places like the Midwest, or hilly places like California, or both like the northeast. Solar also has the problem of variability so absent big immediate breakthroughs in storage tech, there are limits to its contribution to the total energy mix.

The other route is capture tech which is still in the speculative stage in terms of practical scalable application.

We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.


:lmfao:

An excellent and incisive intellectual response.  When Berkut sees these, he cannot criticize it as he properly does the facile and intellectually lazy one-smiley responses.  :thumbsup:

I could be wrong, but I read that as 'skepticism that we, as a society, have the collective foresight and strength of will to do this'.

Yes, this.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 13, 2019, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 13, 2019, 04:10:47 AM
We waited to long to do it properly, so now we do need technological panaceas and fast.  That means immediate implementation of Moon Program/Manhttan Project level crash R&D programs in key areas like storage and capture, creating multi-trillion infrastructure banks to fund clean generation facilities ASAP, dropping aversion to nuclear and hoping the industry can come up with a safe and viable cost-efficient design, and somehow find or train up enough qualified people to build and run them fast.

And we are probably at the point where nation states doing their own thing is not viable.  There is going to have to be intense international cooperation to develop the energy 2.0 grid that will be necessary.

Berkut's response would also be appropriate here.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2019, 12:21:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 02:19:19 PM
Yes, this.

There are two other options.  One is an immediate and radical alteration in human lifestyles to massively reduce energy usage.  The other is to face trillions of dollars of economic losses.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 14, 2019, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2019, 01:16:38 PM
So McConnell is going to schedule a vote on the Green New Deal.  The bill's Senate sponsor (Markey, D-MA) is hacked off about it, calling it "sabotage" :lol:

I mean...why not? It is not like they were ever going to get the votes in the Senate to pass it. And even if they did it would be vetoed. So Markey should be happy about the opportunity to symbolically vote for this and not actually have to worry about what happens if it passes.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on February 14, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2019, 12:21:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 02:19:19 PM
Yes, this.

There are two other options.  One is an immediate and radical alteration in human lifestyles to massively reduce energy usage.  The other is to face trillions of dollars of economic losses.


I think we are going to use Brexit as our model and just sort of muddle through.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 14, 2019, 05:24:12 PM
the difference being that on the day before 2 degrees of warming hits, we can't have a snap referendum to reverse the decision.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on February 14, 2019, 11:52:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2019, 12:21:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 02:19:19 PM
Yes, this.

There are two other options.  One is an immediate and radical alteration in human lifestyles to massively reduce energy usage.  The other is to face trillions of dollars of economic losses.


...and we will pick option 3, do nothing.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 15, 2019, 10:46:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2019, 11:52:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2019, 12:21:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 02:19:19 PM
Yes, this.

There are two other options.  One is an immediate and radical alteration in human lifestyles to massively reduce energy usage.  The other is to face trillions of dollars of economic losses.


...and we will pick option 3, do nothing.

I am afraid option 2 is going to be chosen for us if we do not choose option 1.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 15, 2019, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2019, 10:46:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2019, 11:52:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2019, 12:21:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 13, 2019, 02:19:19 PM
Yes, this.

There are two other options.  One is an immediate and radical alteration in human lifestyles to massively reduce energy usage.  The other is to face trillions of dollars of economic losses.


...and we will pick option 3, do nothing.

I am afraid option 2 is going to be chosen for us if we do not choose option 1.

Yeah, option 3 is the same as option 2.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on February 15, 2019, 12:41:34 PM
These are not the options. We will get trillions of dollars of economic losses no matter what. It's between having our current civilization going into the future or a significaly reduced numbers of humans on this planet.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 15, 2019, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 15, 2019, 12:41:34 PM
These are not the options. We will get trillions of dollars of economic losses no matter what. It's between having our current civilization going into the future or a significaly reduced numbers of humans on this planet.

False choices?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 15, 2019, 07:09:06 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 15, 2019, 12:41:34 PM
These are not the options. We will get trillions of dollars of economic losses no matter what. It's between having our current civilization going into the future or a significaly reduced numbers of humans on this planet.

If we devoted significant resources now to developing a new electrical grid with electricity generated from green sources, there could be an economic boom and we could avoid the most significant losses.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on February 16, 2019, 02:18:32 AM
Current carbon intensity of electricity maps and graphs for the UK :

https://www.carbonintensity.org.uk/

Currently only 23 gCO2/kWh in the NW of England; 182 down your way mongers  :(

So right now is a good time to do one's laundry and recharge the car in NW England.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 16, 2019, 08:54:04 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 16, 2019, 02:18:32 AM
Current carbon intensity of electricity maps and graphs for the UK :

https://www.carbonintensity.org.uk/

Currently only 23 gCO2/kWh in the NW of England; 182 down your way mongers  :(

So right now is a good time to do one's laundry and recharge the car in NW England.

Thanks RH, interesting.

I don't think one can underestimate just who selfish people can be with regard to the environment, as long as the lights switch on they want it make anywhere else, rather than something that might spoil the view on their Sunday afternoon drive.   
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on February 16, 2019, 12:31:53 PM
It seems as if the steely eyed independent minded climatologists/Anne Coulter fans have drifted away from languish a bit or perhaps moved on to more exciting conspiracy theories. As the general mood on here is trending "We are super fucked" I recommend that we have a poll asking our gentle readers to choose which dystopian science fiction nightmare our world is set to fall into.

For starters it could be Children of Men, sad Clive Owen anxiously wandering a grimy UK overwhelmed by some sort of refugee crisis.

The most likely candidate for me though is Zardoz - a far future world split between a tiny group of omnipotent "Eternals" who manipulate the larger population of wild eyed "Brutals" to murder each other in large numbers. Also Sean Connery has a battle-jock-strap of some kind, which is what I would choose for the apocalypse.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 01:13:38 PM
Who was the intelligence NCO who fired his boss?  Can't remember his nick. 

He's the only climate change skeptic i can think of.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on February 16, 2019, 01:18:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 01:13:38 PM
Who was the intelligence NCO who fired his boss?  Can't remember his nick. 

He's the only climate change skeptic i can think of.

Yo.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on February 16, 2019, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 01:13:38 PM
Who was the intelligence NCO who fired his boss?  Can't remember his nick. 

He's the only climate change skeptic i can think of.

Hansmeister
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on February 16, 2019, 01:42:45 PM
Here's the guy.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpEdsh6VqA
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 01:54:36 PM
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2019, 01:18:08 PM
Yo.

That's not it.  Something with an H, maybe German sounding.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM
Wasn't Siege? He had a problem with the moon landing...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on February 16, 2019, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM
Wasn't Siege? He had a problem with the moon landing...

Siege was a moon conspiracy guy. Hans was the climate change denier. He'd bring up some studies from the 70s where scientists predicted global cooling (according to him) as proof that climate science was a fraud. He was also one of those sects of christians that believed that the end times would come when the Jews converted to Christianity. I think he also got into a weird stalking thing with Malthus.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on February 16, 2019, 02:28:58 PM
I repeat: Hansmeister.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on February 16, 2019, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 01:54:36 PM
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2019, 01:18:08 PM
Yo.

That's not it.  Something with an H, maybe German sounding.

You may be right. I can't quite remember his name either.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on February 16, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2019, 07:09:06 PM
If we devoted significant resources now to developing a new electrical grid with electricity generated from green sources, there could be an economic boom and we could avoid the most significant losses.
oh sure.  All wee need is for most of English Canada to accept hydro-electricity from Quebec and ditch their coal&gaz plants.

Easy peasy?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on February 16, 2019, 03:51:29 PM
Quote from: fromtia on February 16, 2019, 12:31:53 PM
It seems as if the steely eyed independent minded climatologists/Anne Coulter fans have drifted away from languish a bit or perhaps moved on to more exciting conspiracy theories. As the general mood on here is trending "We are super fucked" I recommend that we have a poll asking our gentle readers to choose which dystopian science fiction nightmare our world is set to fall into.

For starters it could be Children of Men, sad Clive Owen anxiously wandering a grimy UK overwhelmed by some sort of refugee crisis.

The most likely candidate for me though is Zardoz - a far future world split between a tiny group of omnipotent "Eternals" who manipulate the larger population of wild eyed "Brutals" to murder each other in large numbers. Also Sean Connery has a battle-jock-strap of some kind, which is what I would choose for the apocalypse.
Either The 100 or the new show on Netflix (IO, I think).
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on February 16, 2019, 03:53:26 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 16, 2019, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 01:54:36 PM
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2019, 01:18:08 PM
Yo.

That's not it.  Something with an H, maybe German sounding.

You may be right. I can't quite remember his name either.
Hansmeister, as Syt said.  There may have been another Republican or two in the earlier days following the Mass Exodus from Paradox.

There was an anti-evolution guy, maybe he was a climate change denier too, I cannot remember.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2019, 03:59:18 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 16, 2019, 02:32:36 PM
You may be right. I can't quite remember his name either.

Burgermeister Meisterburger?  That rings a bell.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on February 16, 2019, 05:50:19 PM
Hortleister I think.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 16, 2019, 06:19:14 PM
I thought his name was Vinraith. :unsure:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 16, 2019, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM
Wasn't Siege? He had a problem with the moon landing...

Siege was a moon conspiracy guy. Hans was the climate change denier. He'd bring up some studies from the 70s where scientists predicted global cooling (according to him) as proof that climate science was a fraud. He was also one of those sects of christians that believed that the end times would come when the Jews converted to Christianity. I think he also got into a weird stalking thing with Malthus.

Yes. The sect being Roman Catholicism in his case
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on February 16, 2019, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 16, 2019, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM
Wasn't Siege? He had a problem with the moon landing...

Siege was a moon conspiracy guy. Hans was the climate change denier. He'd bring up some studies from the 70s where scientists predicted global cooling (according to him) as proof that climate science was a fraud. He was also one of those sects of christians that believed that the end times would come when the Jews converted to Christianity. I think he also got into a weird stalking thing with Malthus.

Yes. The sect being Roman Catholicism in his case

Man even the catholics are hardcore in America hah
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on February 17, 2019, 12:28:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 16, 2019, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM
Wasn't Siege? He had a problem with the moon landing...

Siege was a moon conspiracy guy. Hans was the climate change denier. He'd bring up some studies from the 70s where scientists predicted global cooling (according to him) as proof that climate science was a fraud. He was also one of those sects of christians that believed that the end times would come when the Jews converted to Christianity. I think he also got into a weird stalking thing with Malthus.

Yes. The sect being Roman Catholicism in his case
Are you sure? Two non priest catholic as hardcore as Mike Pence in one country?   :cry:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 17, 2019, 12:59:17 AM
Hans and who's the other one? Mel Gibson?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 17, 2019, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 16, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2019, 07:09:06 PM
If we devoted significant resources now to developing a new electrical grid with electricity generated from green sources, there could be an economic boom and we could avoid the most significant losses.
oh sure.  All wee need is for most of English Canada to accept hydro-electricity from Quebec and ditch their coal&gaz plants.

Easy peasy?

Last I checked BC was in English Canada and it does not have coal or gas plants.  But you are correct that there is no way we will accept hydro from Quebec - we have our own :P

So here, ya easy peasy.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on February 17, 2019, 11:27:45 PM
Ontario gets like 40% from hydro and the rest from nuclear IIRC
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 17, 2019, 11:41:44 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 17, 2019, 11:27:45 PM
Ontario gets like 40% from hydro and the rest from nuclear IIRC

So it is Manitoba that is burning all the coal eh? Bastards.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on February 18, 2019, 12:06:53 AM
Or those shifty newfies
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on February 18, 2019, 12:09:41 AM
So are we all playing some sort of joke on Syt here?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on February 18, 2019, 08:59:37 AM
Quote from: HVC on February 17, 2019, 11:27:45 PM
Ontario gets like 40% from hydro and the rest from nuclear IIRC

Aren't the nuclear plants being decommissioned? That's a big 60% We could build together but the RoC doesn't like to work with HQ.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on February 18, 2019, 10:45:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2019, 12:09:41 AM
So are we all playing some sort of joke on Syt here?

#RememberHansmeister
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on February 18, 2019, 11:53:03 AM
Quote from: fromtia on February 16, 2019, 12:31:53 PM


For starters it could be Children of Men, sad Clive Owen anxiously wandering a grimy UK overwhelmed by some sort of refugee crisis.


Children of Men is a rip-off of 2019 after the Fall of New York, itself very much inspired by Escape from New York and Max Max 2 among others.

I'll settle for Zardoz, since the French-dubbed line of " The gun is good, the penis is evil" is hilarious in French. :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on February 18, 2019, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 17, 2019, 11:19:06 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 16, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 15, 2019, 07:09:06 PM
If we devoted significant resources now to developing a new electrical grid with electricity generated from green sources, there could be an economic boom and we could avoid the most significant losses.
oh sure.  All wee need is for most of English Canada to accept hydro-electricity from Quebec and ditch their coal&gaz plants.

Easy peasy?

Last I checked BC was in English Canada and it does not have coal or gas plants.  But you are correct that there is no way we will accept hydro from Quebec - we have our own :P

So here, ya easy peasy.
Read again and put emphasis on most

We could export energy to New Brunswick, but they do not want it.  Newfoundland lobbyed the Feds to get some money for their own hydro project in Labrador and their own submarine power line to reach New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and New England.  So far, it's a mess and Newfoundlanders will pay at least 3x the price it was supposed to be until it is done.

Ontario wants to restart its coal plants and does not wish for powerlines from Quebec to cross its territory.  Manitoba, Sask and Alberta do not want to import electricity from a seperatist province.

To me, that qualifies for "most".
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on February 18, 2019, 03:48:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2019, 11:41:44 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 17, 2019, 11:27:45 PM
Ontario gets like 40% from hydro and the rest from nuclear IIRC

So it is Manitoba that is burning all the coal eh? Bastards.
The prairies burn coal.
New Brunswick too.
PEI, I can't remember.
Newfoundland was supposed to export electricity, but they can't generate enough yet.  Something about cost overrun and production delays...
That is what happens when amateurs try something. ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on February 18, 2019, 07:04:41 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 18, 2019, 11:53:03 AM
Quote from: fromtia on February 16, 2019, 12:31:53 PM


For starters it could be Children of Men, sad Clive Owen anxiously wandering a grimy UK overwhelmed by some sort of refugee crisis.


Children of Men is a rip-off of 2019 after the Fall of New York, itself very much inspired by Escape from New York and Max Max 2 among others.

I'll settle for Zardoz, since the French-dubbed line of " The gun is good, the penis is evil" is hilarious in French. :)

It's pretty hilarious in English as well.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on February 18, 2019, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 18, 2019, 11:53:03 AM
I'll settle for Zardoz, since the French-dubbed line of " The gun is good, the penis is evil" is hilarious in French. :)

Le fusil est bon, le pénis est mieux ?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on February 24, 2019, 09:57:14 AM
Part of the NYTimes editorial on the Green New Deal

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/opinion/green-new-deal-climate-democrats.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

QuoteThe idea of decarbonizing the economy is ambitious, commendable and urgent. In early January, for instance, came three hugely dispiriting reports. The Rhodium Group, a research firm, estimated that America's carbon dioxide emissions, after a period of decline, had risen by 3.4 percent in 2018, even as a near-record number of coal plants around the country were retired. The main culprits were economic growth and rising emissions from factories, putting America's vow to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 further out of reach, absent bold new policies or technological breakthroughs.

This bad news was followed by a study in Science finding that the oceans are warming at an alarming pace, 40 to 50 percent faster than the United Nations had estimated, putting corals and fisheries at even greater risk. If that were not enough, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences followed with a study predicting faster melting of Antarctica's huge ice reserves.

These are not good signs, but Mr. Markey, ever the optimist, thinks there is no better time to put forth aggressive ambitions and solutions. Obviously, nothing will happen legislatively as long as the Republicans control the Senate and Mr. Trump sits in the White House. But the stars are aligned, Mr. Markey thinks, for a robust debate about a climate strategy that his party can take to the voters in 2020. The steady drumbeat of alarming reports, plus one climate-related multibillion dollar disaster after another, has raised public consciousness, which in turn increases public pressure on Congress to do something. In an exchange that went viral on Friday, a group of children pressed Democractic Senator Dianne Feinstein over her refusal to support the plan. "We're the ones who are going to be impacted," one of the children lamented.

Meanwhile, technological progress toward clean-energy solutions has been nothing short of remarkable, giving the lie to the old denier argument that clean energy inevitably means fewer jobs. Wind capacity has increased more than fourfold in the last decade. Solar power, while still a very small part of the total energy mix, has increased at an even faster rate. And prices for both have dropped to the point where they are increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. Ten years ago, an electric car was a curiosity; now more than a million have been sold in the United States.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 24, 2019, 04:11:21 PM
And on the other hand, the soon to be US ambassador to the UN:

Quote
CBC Politics 
    
The new U.S. ambassador to Canada says when it comes to climate change she believes in "both sides of the science" cbc.ca/1.4366936 pic.twitter.com/UNKhgSMj74


:hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 24, 2019, 04:17:55 PM
Cognitive dissonance is probably an important quality to cultivate in the Trump administration.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on February 24, 2019, 05:09:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2019, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 18, 2019, 11:53:03 AM
I'll settle for Zardoz, since the French-dubbed line of " The gun is good, the penis is evil" is hilarious in French. :)

Le fusil est bon, le pénis est mieux ?

Mieux que ça :
"L'arme c'est le bien, le pénis c'est le mal !"
Oui, jeu de mots (involontaire ?) entre mal et mâle.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 25, 2019, 09:21:58 AM
Warmest February day ever recorded today, 20.3C in West Wales.

And by extension the warmest Winter's* day in the UK since records began.

So now 'warming' here then.  :bowler:



* Our Meteorology Office works on calender seasons rather than using the equinox etc, so Winter is offically Dec 1st to Feb 28th/29th.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Solmyr on February 25, 2019, 02:17:07 PM
So Trump is setting up an official climate change denier panel. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-to-select-federal-scientists-to-reassess-government-climate-findings-sources-say/2019/02/24/49cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html)  :glare:

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 02:21:33 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 25, 2019, 02:17:07 PM
So Trump is setting up an official climate change denier panel. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-to-select-federal-scientists-to-reassess-government-climate-findings-sources-say/2019/02/24/49cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html)  :glare:



Yeah there seems to be a major offensive by the fossil fuels people recently. Probably in reaction to the whole "Green New Deal" business.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2019, 04:38:55 PM
One of the many curious aspects of Trump's presidency is the degree he finds himself at war with his own executive branch.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on February 25, 2019, 05:05:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2019, 04:38:55 PM
One of the many curious aspects of Trump's presidency is the degree he finds himself at war with his own executive branch.

Not really, he's been know to pick a fight with his own reflection.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2019, 05:26:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2019, 04:38:55 PM
One of the many curious aspects of Trump's presidency is the degree he finds himself at war with his own executive branch.

How is that curious?  First action of his presidency was to call the CIA and FBI traitors and dumbasses for saying Russia meddled.

DRAIN THE SWAMP
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 08:19:38 PM
Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2019, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 08:19:38 PM
Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.

They didn't pull out because of any laws or regs or anything concrete like that.  They pulled out because of public outcry.

I was confused by that as well.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 08:25:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2019, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 08:19:38 PM
Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.

They didn't pull out because of any laws or regs or anything concrete like that.  They pulled out because of public outcry.

I was confused by that as well.

Ah. So why am I seeing all these think pieces linking it to the Green New Deal and whats-her-name?

What was the public outcry about? I guess I am not getting why this NYC deal is a national story. If New Yorkers didn't like the deal the city struck with Amazon that sounds like a local deal.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2019, 08:29:36 PM
Because she was one of the principle outcriers.  I think the proposed site might be in her district.

The outcry was basically an anti-gentrification argument combined with a claim that the tax break was too big.

edit: I got a chuckle out of whoever said "we could spend that $3 billion on other great things."  What $3 billion are you talking about, you idjit?  It doesn't exist yet and now never will.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 08:31:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2019, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 08:25:24 PM
Ah. So why am I seeing all these think pieces linking it to the Green New Deal and whats-her-name?

What was the public outcry about? I guess I am not getting why this NYC deal is a national story. If New Yorkers didn't like the deal the city struck with Amazon that sounds like a local deal.

Because she was one of the principle outcriers.  I think the proposed site might be in her district.

The outcry was basically an anti-gentrification argument combined with a claim that the tax break was too big.

The tax break thing probably was too big IIRC. But it concerns a bit to have the whole party linked to this one extremist.

Quoteedit: I got a chuckle out of whoever said "we could spend that $3 billion on other great things."  What $3 billion are you talking about, you idjit?  It doesn't exist yet and now never will.

Idiocy like this is what I generally expect from her. Just launching a big political waves without really thinking it through. Maybe she is our Ted Cruz.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on February 25, 2019, 09:28:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2019, 08:19:38 PM
Speaking of the "Green New Deal" so I am hearing it somehow drove Amazon out of NYC or something? How? One crazy law that was never going to be passed suggested by one extremist Congresswoman drove Amazon out of NYC?

I have no idea what is going on there.

I read a few weeks ago that it was possibly cancelled because it appeared that the project would be blocked or seriously delayed in some obscure public board that had to greenlight it because a loud opponent to the project got appointed to it. No idea about how the pundits you listen to link it to the GND.

Edit: Found an article about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/15/amazon-new-york-long-island-city-hq2-michael-gianaris (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/15/amazon-new-york-long-island-city-hq2-michael-gianaris)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on February 25, 2019, 10:57:53 PM
Valmy, Ted Cruz is our Ted Cruz. :alberta:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2019, 11:14:21 PM
Ocasio-Cortes had little to do with the Amazon pull-out from NYC. It is not in her district and as a federal rep, she basically had zero direct power to influence how it played out.  The press played up her limited role because she is a name now and the state and local politicians who actually were involved have no name recognition.

Unions, although very weak nationally, sitll have political influence in NYC and are not friendly to Amazon.  The governor and mayor ran a closed process which made it easy to criticize from the outside. Also the lack of key detail and the lack of transparency made it easier to criticize. They key focal point of opposition was in the NY state sentate, which controls appointments to a state planning board whose approval was needed to get around NYCs otherwise difficult zoning regulations. Basically the state senate leader was going to make it impossible for the planning board to get to the required unanimity requirement. Cuomo's response was to plan to circumvent the board but at that point Amazon walked.

There's no way to know for sure what Amazon's thinking was, but my suspicion is that Bezos was taken aback by the old-school hardball NY politicking and got cold feet.  Cuomo is tough and ruthless and likely would have gotten the deal through, especially with the mayor on board, but Amazon didn't like the heat and the media.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on February 26, 2019, 08:07:21 AM
No one should be friendly to Amazon.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on February 26, 2019, 10:19:34 AM
No one should be shelling out billions in taxpayer subsidies to massive corporations, either.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on February 26, 2019, 10:51:27 AM
Mu understanding is that Amazon stood to benefit from the application of existing NYC and state programs and credits that are also available to other employers.   Amazon's project was so big the total $$ number rose to the billions whereas it would be a much smaller number for a smaller business.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on February 28, 2019, 05:33:59 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/mps-debate-climate-after-school-strike-but-only-a-handful-turn-up?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

QuoteMPs debate climate after school strike – but only a handful turn up

In the week that the UK experienced its hottest ever winter day, just a handful of government MPs attended a debate on climate change in parliament on Thursday.

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said she had secured the discussion after being inspired by the thousands of UK schoolchildren who went on strike over climate change this month and wanted to thank them for forcing MPs into action.

Moran said climate change had not been debated in the main chamber of the House of Commons for two years. She spoke, however, to a chamber where the seats were predominantly empty. At points, as few as 10 MPs sat on government benches, although the opposition side was more occupied. The lacklustre response to the debate from the government was in stark contrast to the condemnation by Downing Street to the thousands of children involved in the strike for climate change, calling it "truancy".

Mary Creagh, chair of the environmental audit committee, said politicians needed to shape and bend the financial system to invest in a green economy.

"To achieve net zero [carbon emissions] we have to reduce our emissions rapidly and at scale in every area of our economy and our lives," she said.

Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, said last year's UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report – detailing the difference between meeting a 1.5C rise above pre-industrial levels compared with 2C – gave the most alarming picture yet of the impact of climate change.

He said: "If you look at the trends, we are not heading for that apocalyptic 2 degree rise, we are heading something that looks more like 3 degrees, the consequences of which we cannot possibly estimate."

In light of that, he said "the idea of children missing a few hours of geometry or PE to wake our political system up is somehow the wrong thing to do just seems ... absurd".

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, who secured the debate with Moran, said long-term climate targets had to be amended to net zero. She said even after all of the international conferences and pledges, the Earth was still set to warm by 3-4C.

"Time is quickly running out to limit warming even to the 1.5 or 2 degree aspirations of the IPCC. We face a climate emergency ... It calls for unprecedented boldness of vision and a new way of thinking."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on March 04, 2019, 09:53:56 AM
https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/state-rep-daryl-metcalfe-says-reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissions-will-kill-his-vegetables/Content?oid=13785614

QuoteState Rep. Daryl Metcalfe says reducing carbon dioxide emissions will kill his vegetables

"I enjoy my vegetables, and plants need CO2, so I want to make sure we have plenty of CO2 out there so we have green grass and green vegetables growing."

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry) is well known for making ludicrous statements, ones that are typically tinged with arch-conservative ideology. For example, a video went viral that showed an irritated Metcalfe shouting "I'm a heterosexual. I have a wife. I love my wife. I don't like men, as you might," when touched on the elbow by a colleague in a hearing last year.

At a Feb. 20 meeting, Metcalfe continued that trend, but this time by embracing climate-change denial. In a committee hearing in Harrisburg about a new report called Advancing Pennsylvania's Energy-Enabled Economy, Metcalfe claims reducing carbon dioxide emissions will actually harm the planet since plants need carbon dioxide (CO2) to survive.

"Just to be on record, I enjoy my vegetables, and plants need CO2, so I want to make sure we have plenty of CO2 out there so we have green grass and green vegetables growing," said Metcalfe in a video released on his Facebook page.

"We need CO2, we can't eliminate all CO2. We are going to have an interesting debate for those that want to reduce something that is actually needed by our environment. And claiming that they are improving the environment."

This claim is obviously false. Earth had plants and agriculture before humans started refining coal and other practices that released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And environmentalists want to reduce CO2 emissions as a goal to slow down climate change, not eliminate CO2 altogether from our atmosphere.

Maybe Metcalfe was trying to make the argument that more CO2 is better for the planet since it could boost agricultural production. That argument has been made before by former U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in 2017, and it has some flaws.

According to the Scientific American magazine, several climate scientists agree that theoretically more CO2 could increase production of agricultural plants. But sharp increases could also reduce nitrogen, which plants, especially wild ones, consume as food. (Plants use CO2 to breathe.)

Additionally, more CO2 in the atmosphere has shown to raise global temperatures. And global temperatures rising quickly can have disastrous effects on plant life. The Scientific American states increased CO2's "negative consequences — such as drought and heat stress — would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life."

A request to Metcalfe's office for comment on this story was not returned.

Further perplexing is that Metcalfe goes on to defend and boost natural gas-drilling, aka fracking, which has been a large driver in reducing CO2, even while boosting other greenhouse gases like methane.

"I think the average individual that is out there trying to heat their home in Philadelphia or in Pittsburgh is very thankful that natural gas has been developed so much in Pennsylvania," said Metcalfe.

He also lauded the construction of the cracker plant in Beaver County, which will refine natural gas into plastics and should boost fracking production in the region.

But even conservative websites publish stories about fracking's role in reducing CO2 emissions. A 2017 article from the Daily Caller say, "Fracking has cut more CO2 emissions than all renewable energy combined."

Metcalfe also criticized renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and claimed they couldn't provide the level of power needed to heat homes during cold snaps. But according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, winter is actually the high season for Canadian wind production.

Metcalfe is the chair of the state House's Environmental Resources & Energy committee, and decides the fate of much of Pennsylvania's environmental legislation. He wrapped up his speech by claiming environmentalists where using "flawed reasoning" when pushing for greener policies.

"To try and put your own view out there instead of putting your facts into account, I think is very flawed science, very flawed reasoning," said Metcalfe. "And not something that our citizens ultimately appreciate or benefit from."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 04, 2019, 10:39:59 AM
The quotes they give don't make the claims ascribed to him.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on March 04, 2019, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 04, 2019, 10:39:59 AM
The quotes they give don't make the claims ascribed to him.

"Just to be on record, I enjoy my vegetables, and plants need CO2, so I want to make sure we have plenty of CO2 out there so we have green grass and green vegetables growing," said Metcalfe in a video released on his Facebook page.

"We need CO2, we can't eliminate all CO2. We are going to have an interesting debate for those that want to reduce something that is actually needed by our environment. And claiming that they are improving the environment."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 04, 2019, 11:49:48 AM
Those are true statements. Some CO2 is needed.

There is perhaps an implication that any reduction in CO2 would be bad, but surely they could have found a quote where he flat out says it?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 04, 2019, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 04, 2019, 11:49:48 AM
Those are true statements. Some CO2 is needed.

There is perhaps an implication that any reduction in CO2 would be bad, but surely they could have found a quote where he flat out says it?

Plants&trees managed just fine before we started burning coal and oil.
Now, why is it that, suddenly, if we reduce our artificial co2 emissions, the earth and all life on it would be doomed?

Imagine a situation where humans are completely wiped out in a week.  A 100% deadly plague, Babylon 5 style.

Are plants better or wost off now that we do not generate co2&methane from burning coal, oil and natural gas and that animal populations are kept in check by various predators?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on March 04, 2019, 01:13:11 PM
My wife's plants would be in serious trouble.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on March 04, 2019, 01:27:38 PM
Just in case you non-America types don't know..."state representatives", are super small fish/more likely to be crazy, and can safely be ignored.

Might just as well get outraged at the antics of a city councilman.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on March 04, 2019, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 04, 2019, 01:27:38 PM
Just in case you non-America types don't know..."state representatives", are super small fish/more likely to be crazy, and can safely be ignored.

No, they can't. US States wield considerable power, many of which have a tremendous impact on the very same dynamics that empower crazy national politicians. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 04, 2019, 03:59:24 PM
Since climate is obviously a national emergency, north americans should be ready to abandon their toilet paper.  Right now.

I'm surprised it wasn't part of the Green New Deal.

https://www.ecowatch.com/forests-tissue-toilet-paper-sustainability-2629612402.html
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on March 04, 2019, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 04, 2019, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 04, 2019, 01:27:38 PM
Just in case you non-America types don't know..."state representatives", are super small fish/more likely to be crazy, and can safely be ignored.

No, they can't. US States wield considerable power, many of which have a tremendous impact on the very same dynamics that empower crazy national politicians. 


You're correct in terms of large groups of state representatives.  Individual state representatives can be ignored.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2019, 04:38:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2019, 04:08:26 PM
You're correct in terms of large groups of state representatives.  Individual state representatives can be ignored.

They hold proportionally more power at the state level than individual congressmen do at the national level.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on March 04, 2019, 05:06:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2019, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 04, 2019, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 04, 2019, 01:27:38 PM
Just in case you non-America types don't know..."state representatives", are super small fish/more likely to be crazy, and can safely be ignored.

No, they can't. US States wield considerable power, many of which have a tremendous impact on the very same dynamics that empower crazy national politicians. 


You're correct in terms of large groups of state representatives.  Individual state representatives can be ignored.


Well, Right-wing representatives who say crazy things should be ignored.  It is vital we discuss left-wing reps as a danger to our Republic.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 04, 2019, 09:12:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2019, 05:06:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2019, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 04, 2019, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 04, 2019, 01:27:38 PM
Just in case you non-America types don't know..."state representatives", are super small fish/more likely to be crazy, and can safely be ignored.

No, they can't. US States wield considerable power, many of which have a tremendous impact on the very same dynamics that empower crazy national politicians. 


You're correct in terms of large groups of state representatives.  Individual state representatives can be ignored.


Well, Right-wing representatives who say crazy things should be ignored.  It is vital we discuss left-wing reps as a danger to our Republic.
how about condemning both, especially when they come from your side? :)

I think the Democrats in the House and Senate did a good job with that anti-semitic congresswoman.  Now, if all those who call themselves left leaning would apply such rigor when it comes to international politics and economy...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on March 04, 2019, 09:31:54 PM
I have plenty of times.  We had a state Rep who publicly stated she wanted Trump to be assassinated.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on March 05, 2019, 04:56:36 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 04, 2019, 11:49:48 AM
Those are true statements. Some CO2 is needed.

There is perhaps an implication that any reduction in CO2 would be bad, but surely they could have found a quote where he flat out says it?

I am not going to dignify with a reply this ridiculous claim that reducing human CO2 emissions would remove CO2 from the atmosphere and make plant life disappear.




I guess we should be happy to see such "opinions" surface though. This really do seem like grasping for straws by deniers.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on March 05, 2019, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2019, 04:38:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 04, 2019, 04:08:26 PM
You're correct in terms of large groups of state representatives.  Individual state representatives can be ignored.

They hold proportionally more power at the state level than individual congressmen do at the national level.

Yep. People often ignore the statehouse but that is where most of the policies that actually impact your life are made.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on March 05, 2019, 12:36:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2019, 05:06:25 PM
Well, Right-wing representatives who say crazy things should be ignored.  It is vital we discuss left-wing reps as a danger to our Republic.

I've ignored plenty of loony lefty state reps.  It's actually the right-wing ones that bother me more.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on March 05, 2019, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2019, 12:36:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2019, 05:06:25 PM
Well, Right-wing representatives who say crazy things should be ignored.  It is vital we discuss left-wing reps as a danger to our Republic.

I've ignored plenty of loony lefty state reps.  It's actually the right-wing ones that bother me more.

I have to admit I kind of tuned out the chatter in the statehouse after the big debate about regulating cheerleader dances back in the day. As usual they seem to be figuring how to appear to lowering taxes while they are, in fact, raising them. Which is a trick Rick Perry was a master at.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on March 05, 2019, 12:47:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2019, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2019, 12:36:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2019, 05:06:25 PM
Well, Right-wing representatives who say crazy things should be ignored.  It is vital we discuss left-wing reps as a danger to our Republic.

I've ignored plenty of loony lefty state reps.  It's actually the right-wing ones that bother me more.

I have to admit I kind of tuned out the chatter in the statehouse after the big debate about regulating cheerleader dances back in the day. As usual they seem to be figuring how to appear to lowering taxes while they are, in fact, raising them. Which is a trick Rick Perry was a master at.

Shouldn't this be in the US elections thread.





j/k
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on March 05, 2019, 12:48:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2019, 12:47:21 PM
Shouldn't this be in the US elections thread.





j/k

Doh!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on March 06, 2019, 07:06:14 PM
A full dossier about the gradual disappearance of snow during winter, in Canada.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/03/neige-accumulation-hiver-quebec-environnement-meteo-gel-degel/index-en.html
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 06, 2019, 07:45:27 PM
Apparently, you should not read this if you are slightly (or more) depressed:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 06, 2019, 07:51:28 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 06, 2019, 07:06:14 PM
A full dossier about the gradual disappearance of snow during winter, in Canada.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/03/neige-accumulation-hiver-quebec-environnement-meteo-gel-degel/index-en.html
Apparently, someone didn't get the memo:
https://www.facebook.com/uniladmag/videos/612607782543096/

;)


(disclaimer: that was a joke, anectdotal evidence/isolated incident in no way meant that climate change is a hoax nor is immediate action and not words are needed)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 06, 2019, 07:55:34 PM
I should also had that telling anyone from Quebec city they receive less acumulated snow than usual is not an advisable option for now.  Short term memory&all that...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on March 07, 2019, 09:19:58 AM
The movement of certain species northwards is one aspect of climate change visible on a human scale.

For example - the opossum has, over the last ten years, extended its range north to Toronto.

While species do normally migrate somewhat, the movement of several species northwards is generally prevented by die-offs due to winter cold.

This is something very visible - because it is hard to miss a gigantic rat-like animal of a species you have never seen before rooting around in your backyard.  :D
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
I had a chianti a few nights ago it seemed a bit hot.  Looked on the label and alchohol levels were at 14.5%.  Historically many Chiantis struggled to hit their minimum alcohol levels of 11.5-12%. The classic chianti was a light-to-medium bodied style wine with the term "nervous" as a common descriptor, now it more often drinks like something from the Southern Rhone or Provence.

Chablis used to have a reputation as a thin wine, as reflected by the AOC regulations that permit bottling of non-cru wines below 10%.  Now it's common to see Chablis marketed at or near 14%.  Some of these wines are good but they aren't Chablis anymore - at least they aren't the Chablis my father introduced me too decades ago.

This is happening in all regions - it's glaring to anyone who has been drinking wine since the 1980s and still has those memories.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on March 07, 2019, 01:38:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
who has been drinking wine since the 1980s and still has those memories.

Impressive.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on March 07, 2019, 01:42:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
I had a chianti a few nights ago it seemed a bit hot.  Looked on the label and alchohol levels were at 14.5%.  Historically many Chiantis struggled to hit their minimum alcohol levels of 11.5-12%. The classic chianti was a light-to-medium bodied style wine with the term "nervous" as a common descriptor, now it more often drinks like something from the Southern Rhone or Provence.

Chablis used to have a reputation as a thin wine, as reflected by the AOC regulations that permit bottling of non-cru wines below 10%.  Now it's common to see Chablis marketed at or near 14%.  Some of these wines are good but they aren't Chablis anymore - at least they aren't the Chablis my father introduced me too decades ago.

This is happening in all regions - it's glaring to anyone who has been drinking wine since the 1980s and still has those memories.

It's quite noticeable. We come from around Orleans and as a kid everything local hovered around 12%. It's near impossible to find now.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 07, 2019, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
This is happening in all regions - it's glaring to anyone who has been drinking wine since the 1980s and still has those memories.
that's likely why I hadn't noticed all these changes, I haven't been drinking wine for that long.  :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on March 07, 2019, 02:01:50 PM
I have been drinking less wine as a result.  It doesn't have the same appeal it once did.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2019, 02:32:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2019, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
This is happening in all regions - it's glaring to anyone who has been drinking wine since the 1980s and still has those memories.
that's likely why I hadn't noticed all these changes, I haven't been drinking whine for that long.  :P

How long have you been whining?    :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 07, 2019, 03:19:02 PM
stupid english grammar :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Caliga on March 07, 2019, 09:19:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2019, 09:19:58 AM
For example - the opossum has, over the last ten years, extended its range north to Toronto.

While species do normally migrate somewhat, the movement of several species northwards is generally prevented by die-offs due to winter cold.

This is something very visible - because it is hard to miss a gigantic rat-like animal of a species you have never seen before rooting around in your backyard.  :D
Yep.  We have armadillos in Kentucky now, though I've yet to see one.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on March 07, 2019, 09:28:13 PM
Plants too.  Flowers that are supposed to blossom in March/April now do so in January. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 12:19:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2019, 09:19:58 AM
For example - the opossum has, over the last ten years, extended its range north to Toronto.
oppossum, I'll handle.
But if I start seeing tarantulas or vipers in my garden, I will feak out.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on March 08, 2019, 09:02:50 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 12:19:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2019, 09:19:58 AM
For example - the opossum has, over the last ten years, extended its range north to Toronto.
oppossum, I'll handle.
But if I start seeing tarantulas or vipers in my garden, I will feak out.

Name doesn't match post.  :lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on March 08, 2019, 01:33:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 07, 2019, 09:19:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2019, 09:19:58 AM
For example - the opossum has, over the last ten years, extended its range north to Toronto.

While species do normally migrate somewhat, the movement of several species northwards is generally prevented by die-offs due to winter cold.

This is something very visible - because it is hard to miss a gigantic rat-like animal of a species you have never seen before rooting around in your backyard.  :D
Yep.  We have armadillos in Kentucky now, though I've yet to see one.

Relax.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:06:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2019, 01:33:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 07, 2019, 09:19:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2019, 09:19:58 AM
For example - the opossum has, over the last ten years, extended its range north to Toronto.

While species do normally migrate somewhat, the movement of several species northwards is generally prevented by die-offs due to winter cold.

This is something very visible - because it is hard to miss a gigantic rat-like animal of a species you have never seen before rooting around in your backyard.  :D
Yep.  We have armadillos in Kentucky now, though I've yet to see one.

Relax.

Who will speak for the Swedes, when they come for you. :(
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 03:22:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 08, 2019, 09:02:50 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 12:19:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 07, 2019, 09:19:58 AM
For example - the opossum has, over the last ten years, extended its range north to Toronto.
oppossum, I'll handle.
But if I start seeing tarantulas or vipers in my garden, I will feak out.

Name doesn't match post.  :lol:
:cool:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on March 14, 2019, 09:48:09 PM
Mozambique under threat from a very strong tropical cyclone, storm surges of 4+ metres predicted.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/25E7/production/_106030790_snapshot.jpg)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47576831 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47576831)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on March 15, 2019, 01:43:53 PM
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47581585

QuoteClimate strikes spread worldwide as students call for action

Thousands of school pupils worldwide have abandoned classrooms for a day of protest against climate change.

India, South Korea, Australia and the US are among the countries where teenagers are already on strike.

The day of action is expected to embrace about 100 countries. They are inspired by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who protests weekly outside Sweden's parliament.

Scientists say tougher measures are needed to cut global warming.

The Paris climate agreement of 2017 committed nearly 200 countries to keeping global temperatures "well below" 2.0C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and to striving for a maximum of 1.5C.

The globally co-ordinated children's protests - promoted through posts on Twitter and other social media - have been going on for several months.

On Thursday Greta Thunberg's campaigning earned her a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

In January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the 16-year-old told top executives and politicians that "on climate change, we have to acknowledge that we have failed".

Ministers in some countries have voiced concern about children skipping classes.

Australia's Education Minister Dan Tehan said "students leaving school during school hours to protest is not something that we should encourage".

UK Education Secretary Damian Hinds echoed that concern, and the government said the disruption increased teachers' workloads and wasted lesson time.

But Environment Secretary Michael Gove backed the protesting children, saying in a video: "Dear school climate strikers, we agree."

"Collective action of the kind you're championing can make a difference, and a profound one," he said.

20,000 students protested in Austria, 10,500 in Vienna. Chancellor Kurz declared solidarity with the students, most of which were confused, because "We protest because he doesn't get his ass in gear."

Most ... interesting signs:

(https://preview.redd.it/4myriodrsam21.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=d6106b9068184e62de9ed734e2bd387d44d5e767)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on March 15, 2019, 02:41:42 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 07, 2019, 09:19:37 PM

Yep.  We have armadillos in Kentucky now, though I've yet to see one.

We supposedly have them in North Carolina now, too, but I don't think they're this far east yet.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on March 15, 2019, 02:42:51 PM
I am sorry to hear that. They are incredibly stupid and annoying.

I guess they are kind of cute though.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on March 15, 2019, 02:52:14 PM
I kind of like the idea of armadillos expanding their range.  In their case, my understand (which, as always, may be faulty) is that it's not so much because of climate change but because of the decline of other mammals that compete with them and also the decline of the few things that prey on them.  At any rate, I think I'd rather have the around than possums.  Not that possums aren't a bit cool themselves because of being marsupials.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on March 15, 2019, 05:33:23 PM
A couple of hundred students protested outside the government HQs yesterday.  Most of them didn't look like locals though.  I bet they were international school students, children of expats. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on March 15, 2019, 05:38:05 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 15, 2019, 05:33:23 PM
A couple of hundred students protested outside the government HQs yesterday.  Most of them didn't look like locals though.  I bet they were international school students, children of expats.

Mono if you had children, would you be 'embarrassed' if they'd taken part?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on March 15, 2019, 05:39:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 15, 2019, 05:38:05 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 15, 2019, 05:33:23 PM
A couple of hundred students protested outside the government HQs yesterday.  Most of them didn't look like locals though.  I bet they were international school students, children of expats.

Mono if you had children, would you be 'embarrassed' if they'd taken part?

Super embarrassed. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on March 15, 2019, 05:50:51 PM
They marched past my office.  A large well ordered group.  Mono would approve.  Until he learned the substance of what they were doing.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on March 15, 2019, 06:07:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 15, 2019, 05:50:51 PM
They marched past my office.  A large well ordered group.  Mono would approve.  Until he learned the substance of what they were doing.

:lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on March 15, 2019, 06:20:58 PM
Saw lots of kids out in DC today when I went to grab lunch.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on March 15, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
Students still haven't spread to Kentucky. :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tonitrus on March 16, 2019, 10:34:25 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
Students still haven't spread to Kentucky. :)

What about Sweden?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 16, 2019, 10:36:12 AM
What would Caliga's sock puppet know about Sweden?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on March 16, 2019, 05:07:40 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 16, 2019, 10:34:25 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
Students still haven't spread to Kentucky. :)

What about Sweden?

We have plenty of students in Sweden. :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on March 16, 2019, 07:07:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 16, 2019, 05:07:40 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 16, 2019, 10:34:25 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
Students still haven't spread to Kentucky. :)

What about Sweden?

We have plenty of students in Sweden. :)

Are they expanding their range northward?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on March 17, 2019, 02:56:42 AM
Quote from: dps on March 16, 2019, 07:07:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 16, 2019, 05:07:40 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 16, 2019, 10:34:25 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2019, 06:22:04 PM
Students still haven't spread to Kentucky. :)

What about Sweden?

We have plenty of students in Sweden. :)

Are they expanding their range northward?

We don't know. No one lives up north.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on March 17, 2019, 05:25:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 07, 2019, 01:42:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
I had a chianti a few nights ago it seemed a bit hot.  Looked on the label and alchohol levels were at 14.5%.  Historically many Chiantis struggled to hit their minimum alcohol levels of 11.5-12%. The classic chianti was a light-to-medium bodied style wine with the term "nervous" as a common descriptor, now it more often drinks like something from the Southern Rhone or Provence.

Chablis used to have a reputation as a thin wine, as reflected by the AOC regulations that permit bottling of non-cru wines below 10%.  Now it's common to see Chablis marketed at or near 14%.  Some of these wines are good but they aren't Chablis anymore - at least they aren't the Chablis my father introduced me too decades ago.

This is happening in all regions - it's glaring to anyone who has been drinking wine since the 1980s and still has those memories.

It's quite noticeable. We come from around Orleans and as a kid everything local hovered around 12%. It's near impossible to find now.

Never saw Chablis that high but it is mostly 12.5 %, a bit higher than I remember.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on March 23, 2019, 06:15:22 PM
Could this be the miracle machine?

QuoteSoundEnergy's THEARC-25 thermoacoustic cooling system is claimed to take heat and turn it into sound, before then turning that sound into cold – all without moving parts, and without any additional energy required.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2019/01/18/this-dutch-startup-converts-heat-into-cold-via-a-stirling-engine-and-could-just-save-the-planet/
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on March 27, 2019, 04:01:56 AM
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ID=2271BAF4-7F34-4BE8-81C5-B621E9BAF878

QuoteMr. President,

Fear has become an all-too-prevalent quality in America's political discourse.

And unfortunately, fear is unavoidable when debating the substance of the resolution before us today – climate change, socialism, and the Green New Deal.

On entering this debate, I have a little fear in my heart, too.

But, Mr. President, my fear at this moment may be a little different from that of my colleagues.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I am not immediately afraid of what carbon emissions, unaddressed, might do our environment, our civilization, and our planet.

Unlike others, I am not immediately afraid of what the Green New Deal would do to our economy and our government. After all, it's not going to pass today.

Rather, after reading the Green New Deal, I am mostly afraid of not being able to get through this speech with a straight face.

For Mr. President, I rise today to consider the Green New Deal with the level of seriousness it deserves.

(https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/87240bba-1544-49ff-b22b-495b7d878d29/reagan-custom.jpg)

This is a picture of former President Ronald Reagan firing a machine gun while riding on the back of a dinosaur.

You will note both the rocket launcher strapped to his back, and the stirring patriotism of the velociraptor holding up the tattered American flag.

Now, critics might quibble with this depiction of the climactic battle of the Cold War, because – while awesome – in real life there was no climactic battle, with or without velociraptors.

The Cold War was won without firing a shot.

But that quibble actually serves our purposes here today, Mr. President.

Because this image has as much to do with overcoming Soviet communism in the 20th century as the Green New Deal has to do with overcoming climate change in the 21st.

The aspirations of the proposal have been called radical and extreme. But mostly they are ridiculous.

There isn't a single serious idea here. To illustrate, let me highlight two of the most prominent goals produced by the plan's authors.

Goal Number One: the Green New Deal calls for the elimination of all airplanes.

This might seem merely ambitious for politicians who represent the densely populated northeast. But how is this supposed to work for our fellow citizens who don't live between Washington and Boston?

In a future without air travel, how are people supposed to get around the vast expanses of, say, Alaska during the winter?

I'll tell you how.

(https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6ed9501c-8fb3-41de-9af6-cba7bdd173b0/tauntaun-custom.jpg)

Tauntauns, Mr. President: a beloved species of repto-mammals native to the ice planet of Hoth.

While not as efficient as planes or snow-mobiles, these hairy, bipedal space lizards offer their own unique benefits.

Not only are tauntauns carbon-neutral, but according to one report "a long time ago" and "far, far away," they may even be fully recyclable for their warmth on especially cold nights.

What about Hawaii, isolated, 2,000 miles out into the Pacific Ocean? Under the Green New Deal's airplane prohibition, how are they supposed to get to and from the mainland, or maintain their tourism-based economy?

At that distance, swimming would be out of the question. And jet skis are notorious gas-guzzlers. No, all residents of Hawaii would be left with... is this.

(https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=566F2721-9673-4177-BF2D-D002BD43395B)

This is a picture Aquaman, a super hero from the underwater kingdom of Atlantis and founding member of the Super Friends.

I draw your attention, Mr. President, to the twenty-foot sea horse he is riding. Under the Green New Deal, this is probably Hawaii's best bet.

Now, I'm the first to admit that a massive fleet of giant, trained seahorses would be very cool. But we have no idea about scalability or domestic capacity in this sector.

The last thing we want is to ban all airplanes, and only then find out that China or Russia have already established strategic hippocampus programs designed to cut the United States out of the global market.

Mr. President, we must not allow a giant seahorse gap!

Goal Number Two: the Green New Deal anticipates the elimination of all cows.

(https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6a12be14-c323-4f6a-b01a-68f01a8b921f/cows-custom.jpg)

Talking points released by the sponsors of the resolution the day it was introduced cited the goal of "fully get[ting] rid of" – I will paraphrase – "[flatulating] cows.'"

Now, Mr. President, I share their concern. But honestly, if they think the cows smell bad, just wait 'til they get a whiff of the seahorses.

But back to the cattle. I have a chart to illustrate the trend.

As you see, Mr. President, on the left these little cows represent the population of bovine Americans today.

On the right is the future population under the Green New Deal. We would go from about 94 million cows to... zero cows.

You may think I'm exaggerating, Mr. President, but this is no bull.

No more milk. No more cheese. No more steak. No more hamburgers.

Over the state work period last week, I visited some farms to find out for myself what Utah's own bovine community thinks of the Green New Deal.

Every cow I talked to said the same thing: "Boooooooo."

The authors of this proposal will protest that these goals are not actually part of the Green New Deal, but were merely included in supporting documents – accidentally – sent out by the office of the lead House sponsor.

But, Mr. President, this only makes my point.

The supporters of the Green New Deal want Americans to trust them to reorganize our entire society and economy ... when they couldn't even figure out how to send out the right press release.

The Green New Deal is not a serious policy document because it is not a policy document at all. It's an aesthetic one.

This resolution is not an agenda of solutions. It's a token of elite tribal identity – and endorsing it, a public act of piety for the chic and woke.

And on those embarrassing terms, it is already a resounding success.

As Speaker Pelosi herself put it: "The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they're for it right?"

Right.

(https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f29d49df-2b90-4cbf-bb5a-59aceff8e80c/new-nancy-quote-custom.jpg)

Critics will no doubt chastise me for not taking climate change seriously. But please, Mr. President. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No Utahn needs to hear pious lectures about the gravity of climate change from politicians from other states.

For it was only 2016 – as viewers of the SyFy Network will remember – when climate change hit home in Utah, when our state was struck not simply by a tornado, Mr. President, but a tornado ... with sharks in it!

(https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8827429a-3367-4446-8abd-7888fdc92092/sharknado-4-custom.jpg)

These images are from the indispensable documentary film, Sharknado 4.

They capture the moment when one of the tornado sharks crashed through the office window of Utah's Governor, Gary Herbert.

A true Utah hero, Herbert bravely fought the animal off with the tennis racket he keeps by his desk ... for just such occasions.

So let's be really clear, Mr. President. Climate change is no joke. But the Green New Deal is a joke.

It is the legislative equivalent of Austin Powers's "Dr. Evil" demanding "sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads."

The Green New Deal is not the solution to climate change. It's not even part of the solution. It's part of the problem.

The solution to climate change won't be found in political posturing or virtue signaling like this.

It won't be found in the federal government at all.

You know where the solution can be found? In churches, wedding chapels, and maternity wards across the country and around the world.

(https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e6ca5be8-16c1-4e40-8e67-9303933f6c87/babies-custom.jpg)

This, Mr. President, is the real solution to climate change: babies.

Climate change is an engineering problem – not social engineering, but the real kind.

It's a challenge of creativity, ingenuity, and technological invention.

And problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws, but by more humans!

More people mean bigger markets for innovation.

More babies mean more forward-looking adults – the sort we need to tackle long-term, large scale problems.

American babies, in particular, are likely going to be wealthier, better educated, and more conservation-minded than children raised in still-industrializing regions.

As economist Tyler Cowen recently wrote on this very point, "by having more children, you are making your nation more populous – thus boosting its capacity to solve [climate change]."

Finally, Mr. President, children are a mark of the kind of personal, communal, and societal optimism that is the true pre-requisite for meeting national and global challenges together.

The courage needed to solve climate change is nothing compared with the courage needed to start a family.

The true heroes of this story aren't politicians or social media activists.

They are moms and dads, and the little boys and girls they are, at this moment, putting down for naps... helping with their homework... building tree houses... and teaching how to tie their shoes.

The planet does not need us to "think globally, and act locally" so much as it needs us to think family, and act personally.

The solution to climate change is not this unserious resolution, but the serious business of human flourishing – the solution to so many of our problems, at all times and in all places: fall in love, get married, and have some kids.

I yield the floor.


You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK27NZon11w
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on March 27, 2019, 04:30:59 AM
Is that guy for real? I saw yesterday the part about the babies on Twitter and that seemed already ridiculous enough, without all the rest of the presentation.  :wacko:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on March 27, 2019, 04:42:35 AM
He's an elected senator.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on March 27, 2019, 04:49:05 AM
Fantastic speech.  It is actually quite funny and amusing.  Can't believe he really used those visual aids.  I love how he delivered it in a straight face, and how his aide seems to be desperately holding back. 

I am totally for having more babies, as long as those aren't mine.  I think an ever increasing number of babies is a necessary foundation of a growing and prosperous nation.  It also has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

A bit worrying though.  If his goal is to undermine the Green New Deal, I fear he has achieved the opposite.  Because it highlights the quality of the opposition to the Green New Deal.   We need sane arguments against the Green New Deal.  Not...this. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on March 27, 2019, 04:58:46 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 27, 2019, 04:49:05 AM
Fantastic speech.  It is actually quite funny and amusing.  Can't believe he really used those visual aids.  I love how he delivered it in a straight face, and how his aide seems to be desperately holding back. 

I am totally for having more babies, as long as those aren't mine.  I think an ever increasing number of babies is a necessary foundation of a growing and prosperous nation.  It also has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

A bit worrying though.  If his goal is to undermine the Green New Deal, I fear he has achieved the opposite.  Because it highlights the quality of the opposition to the Green New Deal.   We need sane arguments against the Green New Deal.  Not...this.

How many people do you think the planet can sustain? 10 billion? 15 billion? 50 billion?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on March 27, 2019, 05:04:45 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2019, 04:58:46 AM


How many people do you think the planet can sustain? 10 billion? 15 billion? 50 billion?

Not sure.  But I think human societies and technologies evolve to deal with new challenges.  Right now we may support, say 10 billion people.  If there are actually 15 billion people, then the additional population pressure will incentivise humanity to find new ways to support more people.  In short, life will find a way.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on March 27, 2019, 05:37:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

It was what drove Hitler to try and conquer Lebensraum for Germans, because he felt the territory was too small for its population (it was then at about the same levels as modern Germany).

That said, I don't think turning Earth in an ecumenopolis is a splendid idea. :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 07:09:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

I wonder what Malthus would say about this
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on March 27, 2019, 07:52:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 07:09:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

I wonder what Malthus would say about this

It's a crisis!  :ph34r:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 07:54:17 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2019, 05:37:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

It was what drove Hitler to try and conquer Lebensraum for Germans, because he felt the territory was too small for its population (it was then at about the same levels as modern Germany).

That said, I don't think turning Earth in an ecumenopolis is a splendid idea. :P

That's why we need to colonise the solar system.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on March 27, 2019, 08:49:12 AM
Wait a second.  I rewatched the speech from the Honourable Senator, "...former President Ronald Reagan, naturally firing a machine gun, while riding on the back of a dinosaur."  Did I hear it correctly that he used the word "naturally?"  That word choice is simply glorious. 

The sanity of US voters is one of the most important foundations of world peace, and after watching this video, my faith in the US electorate and US senators has been eroded.  A bit. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 09:02:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2019, 07:52:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 07:09:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

I wonder what Malthus would say about this

It's a crisis!  :ph34r:

I knew you would not disappoint  :D
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 01:16:28 PM
On the good news front a sea plane company operating out of the port of Vancouver is going to convert its whole fleet to electric engines starting this year.  I use them to fly to Victoria and other towns on Vancouver Island and the Coast of BC on business.  I look forward to the more quiet ride  :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 07:54:17 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2019, 05:37:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

It was what drove Hitler to try and conquer Lebensraum for Germans, because he felt the territory was too small for its population (it was then at about the same levels as modern Germany).

That said, I don't think turning Earth in an ecumenopolis is a splendid idea. :P

That's why we need to colonise the solar system.

I'm all for it but it won't help overpopulation on Earth. Unless we figure out how to build space elevators, 99% of the solar system population will be here.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on March 27, 2019, 01:39:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 01:16:28 PM
On the good news front a sea plane company operating out of the port of Vancouver is going to convert its whole fleet to electric engines starting this year.  I use them to fly to Victoria and other towns on Vancouver Island and the Coast of BC on business.  I look forward to the more quiet ride  :)

It's amazing that batteries are now good enough for that.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on March 27, 2019, 01:44:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2019, 01:39:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 01:16:28 PM
On the good news front a sea plane company operating out of the port of Vancouver is going to convert its whole fleet to electric engines starting this year.  I use them to fly to Victoria and other towns on Vancouver Island and the Coast of BC on business.  I look forward to the more quiet ride  :)

It's amazing that batteries are now good enough for that.

Yes.

Lithium batteries are subject to spontaneous combustion & we're putting them in planes!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 01:54:07 PM
Because jet fuel is noncombustible?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on March 27, 2019, 02:02:55 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 27, 2019, 01:44:11 PM
Lithium batteries are subject to spontaneous combustion & we're putting them in planes!

As long as Boeing makes the avionics and autopilot software kit, we're good.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on March 27, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 01:54:07 PM
Because jet fuel is noncombustible?

I don't think jet fuel is subject to spontaneous combustion.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on March 27, 2019, 02:39:26 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:26:12 PM
Unless we figure out how to build space elevators, 99% of the solar system population will be here.

Not if people in the colonies outbreed terrestrial ones. But you're correct that won't help people on earth.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on March 27, 2019, 02:48:45 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 07:54:17 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2019, 05:37:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

It was what drove Hitler to try and conquer Lebensraum for Germans, because he felt the territory was too small for its population (it was then at about the same levels as modern Germany).

That said, I don't think turning Earth in an ecumenopolis is a splendid idea. :P

That's why we need to colonise the solar system.

I'm all for it but it won't help overpopulation on Earth. Unless we figure out how to build space elevators, 99% of the solar system population will be here.

If we can figure out how to get 1% of the human population off of Earth and living in a sustainable manner, I will consider that a tremendous success.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 02:55:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 27, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 01:54:07 PM
Because jet fuel is noncombustible?

I don't think jet fuel is subject to spontaneous combustion.  :hmm:

Li-Ion batteries are not subject to being used as an explosive either :hmm: Why does that not terrify you?

But just like we regard stoking a giant fireball and running super heated water through tiny pipes in a boiler that potentially might explode as no big deal, because we understand it and how to keep it going, the issues with Li-Ion batteries are not magical or mysterious. They have been known forever and just like having lots of explosions going on on board they can be managed through intelligent engineering.

This strikes me as fear mongering. Sort of like the people trying to convince us that Lithium will become the new oil and ruin the world or something. Anything new freaks people out that sometimes we forget how theoretically dangerous most of the stuff that already surrounds us on a daily basis that we now regard as mundane.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on March 27, 2019, 02:56:53 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 27, 2019, 02:48:45 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 07:54:17 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2019, 05:37:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2019, 05:30:49 AM
I am listening to an audiobook (Keegan's about the British Empire) and it mentioned how there was an early 19th century fear of overpopulation.

It was what drove Hitler to try and conquer Lebensraum for Germans, because he felt the territory was too small for its population (it was then at about the same levels as modern Germany).

That said, I don't think turning Earth in an ecumenopolis is a splendid idea. :P

That's why we need to colonise the solar system.

I'm all for it but it won't help overpopulation on Earth. Unless we figure out how to build space elevators, 99% of the solar system population will be here.

If we can figure out how to get 1% of the human population off of Earth and living in a sustainable manner, I will consider that a tremendous success.

Will the 1% take their wealth with them?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2019, 02:56:53 PM
Will the 1% take their wealth with them?

Unless the 1% have all their wealth in cash I don't think that is possible :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on March 27, 2019, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2019, 02:56:53 PM
Will the 1% take their wealth with them?

Unless the 1% have all their wealth in cash I don't think that is possible :P

I'm told cash is awesome, so they probably do.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on March 27, 2019, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 02:55:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 27, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 01:54:07 PM
Because jet fuel is noncombustible?

I don't think jet fuel is subject to spontaneous combustion.  :hmm:

Li-Ion batteries are not subject to being used as an explosive either :hmm: Why does that not terrify you?

But just like we regard stoking a giant fireball and running super heated water through tiny pipes in a boiler that potentially might explode as no big deal, because we understand it and how to keep it going, the issues with Li-Ion batteries are not magical or mysterious. They have been known forever and just like having lots of explosions going on on board they can be managed through intelligent engineering.

This strikes me as fear mongering. Sort of like the people trying to convince us that Lithium will become the new oil and ruin the world or something. Anything new freaks people out that sometimes we forget how theoretically dangerous most of the stuff that already surrounds us on a daily basis that we now regard as mundane.

Yeah, the planes used by this service currently depend on an engine system that require many explosions going off throughout the flight.  I am a bit more at ease with a system that actively avoids any explosions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2019, 08:11:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2019, 08:29:36 PM
Because she was one of the principle outcriers.  I think the proposed site might be in her district.

The outcry was basically an anti-gentrification argument combined with a claim that the tax break was too big.

edit: I got a chuckle out of whoever said "we could spend that $3 billion on other great things."  What $3 billion are you talking about, you idjit?  It doesn't exist yet and now never will.

Ocasio-Cortez is a proponent of modern monetary theory, which, if I understand it correctly says that government can print as much money as it wants as long as inflation remains under control. Even taxes aren't necessary to fund things, though they can be a net good as a brake on inequality and inflation.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-21/modern-monetary-theory-beginner-s-guide
QuoteWarren Buffett Hates It. AOC Is for It. A Beginner's Guide to Modern Monetary Theory
An overview of a once-fringe school of economic thought that's suddenly of the moment.

By Peter Coy, Katia Dmitrieva, and Matthew Boesler
2019년 3월 21일 오후 7:00 GMT+9

There's a lot of debate swirling around Modern Monetary Theory—some strident. Its critics call it a hot mess. "MMT has constructed such a bizarre, illogical, convoluted way of thinking about macro that it's almost impervious to attack," Bentley University economist Scott Sumner claimed recently on his blog. MMT's proponents say it's the critics who are impervious to reason—"part of a degenerative paradigm that has lost credibility," says Australian MMTer William Mitchell.

This state of confusion isn't good because Modern Monetary Theory, once confined to blogs and a handful of colleges including the University of Missouri at Kansas City, suddenly matters. In the U.S., the left wing of the Democratic Party is citing MMT to make the case for massive federal government spending on a Green New Deal to wean the U.S. off fossil fuels and fund Medicare for All. It's virtually certain that MMT will be dragged into the debates of the 2020 presidential race. So the time is right for a semi-deep dive into Modern Monetary Theory—what it is, where it comes from, its pros and its cons.

Fortunately, the first academic textbook based on the theory was published in February. The 573-page tome, titled simply Macroeconomics, is by Mitchell, an economist at the University of Newcastle in Australia; Randall Wray of Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.; and Martin Watts, an emeritus professor at Newcastle. This article is based on the textbook as well as academic papers and blogs by MMTers and their critics.

MMT proposes that a country with its own currency, such as the U.S., doesn't have to worry about accumulating too much debt because it can always print more money to pay interest. So the only constraint on spending is inflation, which can break out if the public and private sectors spend too much at the same time. As long as there are enough workers and equipment to meet growing demand without igniting inflation, the government can spend what it needs to maintain employment and achieve goals such as halting climate change.

If you've absorbed that much, you're already ahead of a lot of the critics. Because MMT is associated with the Left, some people assume it favors soaking the rich to pay for social programs. In fact, MMT breaks with liberal orthodoxy by saying that while taxes on the wealthy are good for lessening inequality, they aren't essential to pay for government spending. Another misconception is that MMT says deficits never matter. On March 13 the University of Chicago Booth School of Business published a survey of prominent economists that misrepresented MMT that way, leaving out its understanding that too-big deficits can cause excessive inflation. The surveyed professors roundly disagreed with MMT as described. MMTers cried foul.


Modern Monetary Theory says the world still hasn't come to terms with the death of the gold standard in 1971, when President Richard Nixon declared that the dollar was no longer convertible into gold. In the modern era of "fiat" currency, MMT says, the U.S. and other big economies no longer need to worry about having enough gold to back their paper money, so they're free to print however much they need.

MMT claims to be the legitimate heir to the theories of Britain's John Maynard Keynes, who created the field of macroeconomics during the Great Depression. Keynes coined the term "paradox of thrift." His insight was that while any single household can dig itself out of a hole by cutting spending when its income falls, the economy as a whole cannot. One household's spending is another's income, so if everybody cuts back, no one gets paid. What you get then is a depression—a situation only government can fix because, unlike the private sector, it can afford to spend freely, putting money in people's pockets and thus getting the economy back on track.

In MMT's reckoning, Keynesianism was gutted in the following decades by successors such as Paul Samuelson, who unrealistically tried to make economics like physics, playing down the role of fundamental uncertainty. MMTers haven't endeared themselves to the mainstream by referring to that school of thought as "bastard Keynesianism," a coinage of the late British economist Joan Robinson.


MMT also draws on the "functional finance" work of the Russian-born British economist Abba Lerner, who wrote in the 1940s that government should spend what's required to achieve its goals, deficits be damned. Later, Britain's Wynne Godley developed the concept of sectoral balances, which focuses on the accounting truth that when the government runs a deficit, the nongovernment sector must run a surplus, and vice versa.

Starting in the 1990s, the budding movement coalesced with the financial and intellectual support of Warren Mosler, a hedge fund manager who lives in the U.S. Virgin Islands and has interests ranging from politics to catamaran design. It ran into skepticism. When Mitchell presented the ideas at an economic conference, he recalls, the first comment was from a man who said, "I think we are being visited by a presence from Mars today."

MMT rejects the modern consensus that economies should be steered primarily by the raising and lowering of interest rates. MMTers believe that the natural rate of interest in a world of fiat money is zero and that pegging it higher is a giveaway to the investor class. They say tweaking interest rates is ineffectual because businesses make investment decisions based on prospects for growth, not the cost of money.

MMTers argue that economies should be guided by fiscal policy—government spending and taxation. They want a nation's central bank to do the bidding of its treasury. So when the treasury needs money, the central bank accommodates it with a keystroke—creating base money from thin air by crediting the treasury's checking account. The new textbook says that today, governments "tend to run unduly restrictive fiscal policy stances so as not to contradict the monetary policy stance."

MMT says that, contrary to appearances, banks don't make loans out of deposits. Rather, they make loans based on the demand for borrowing, then the borrowers stash the proceeds in the bank. Anyone they write a check to simply makes a deposit in another bank. The bottom line is that loans create deposits rather than deposits creating loans. This is one aspect of MMT that even some conservative central bankers—including those at Germany's Bundesbank—agree with.


To stabilize employment, MMT would add a federally funded, locally administered job guarantee. Government would employ more people in slumps than in booms. Pavlina Tcherneva of Bard College's Levy Economics Institute is refining the plan. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialist from the Bronx who's in her first term in Congress, supports the job guarantee and says MMT should be "a larger part of our conversation."

MMT challenges a core principle of conventional economics, which is that an increase in budget deficits will tend to raise interest rates, all else equal. Just the opposite, it says, sounding a bit like the White Queen from Alice in Wonderland. When the government spends more, the private sector gets the money and puts it in the banking system. With more money in the system and no increase in demand for it, interest rates will tend to fall, not rise, MMT says. That is, unless the government chooses to soak up reserves by selling bonds, which it doesn't have to do.

The reason the government doesn't need to sell treasury securities, or levy taxes, to spend money is that the central bank, under the control of the treasury, can pay for everything by conjuring up electronic money. In MMT's ideal world there would still be taxes, but their main purpose, aside from lessening inequality, would be as "offsets" to keep inflation under control. Taxes would drain just enough money from consumers and businesses so total spending in the economy won't be excessive.

It's tempting to view MMT's conception of fiscal policy as essentially similar to that of the mainstream—"Hey, they believe in taxes, too!"—but that's not quite right. MMTers hold that inflation isn't primarily the result of excessively strong growth. They blame much of it on businesses' excessive pricing power. So before trying to choke off growth to kill inflation, they would try to break up monopolies and stop banks from making too many loans. "The more actively we regulate big business for public purpose, the tighter the full employment we can achieve," three MMTers wrote in a letter to the Financial Times' Alphaville column that was published on March 1.


With that formula, it's no wonder that MMT has loud critics on Wall Street, where it's sometimes derided as Magic Money Tree. What's more surprising is how much flak the school of thought is taking from liberal economists who'd appear to be natural allies, such as Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary and former Harvard president. Summers has been making the case that wealthy nations are suffering from "secular stagnation" and require permanently high levels of stimulative deficit spending by governments to keep them out of recession, which is similar to what MMT argues. Yet in a recent Washington Post op-ed, Summers called MMT "fallacious at multiple levels."

Summers and others may be worried that MMT will give a bad name to their more conventionally dovish views on deficits. "As long as they're out there claiming that standard macroeconomics is all wrong, I guess we need to respond," Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate who is a professor at City University of New York Graduate Center, wrote on his New York Times blog.

MMT's critics argue that trying to use fiscal policy to steer the economy is a proven failure because Congress and the president rarely act quickly enough to respond to a downturn. And they say politicians can't be relied upon to impose pain on the public through higher taxes or lower spending to squelch rising inflation. MMTers respond that they also oppose fine-tuning and instead want to use automatic stabilizers—including the jobs guarantee—to keep the economy on track.

MMT's detractors are skeptical of the idea that the treasury and central bank should work in concert. The Federal Reserve did the Treasury Department's bidding during World War II, but that "overdraft" privilege was used spottily thereafter and permanently ended in 1981—precisely because economists warned that a subservient central bank would allow inflation to race out of control. They're also dubious of the jobs guarantee, arguing that if the government's wage for guaranteed jobs is too low it won't do much to help unemployed workers or the economy, while if it's too high it will undermine private employment. Tcherneva's plan calls for $15 an hour. MMT envisions that government-employed workers would move back into the private sector when the economy strengthened, but that means some government functions would no longer be performed. In an email, Wray said the cyclical fluctuations in government employment are manageable.

Critics of MMT reject its reassurance that a country with its own currency doesn't need to worry about deficits. After all, it's been proven that a nation that loses the confidence of the world's investors will see its currency plummet. As recently as 1976, the U.K. was forced to appeal to the International Monetary Fund to stabilize the value of sterling. Wray said the U.K.'s mistake was trying to peg its currency to the dollar and the crisis eased when it allowed the pound to float.

Other disagreements are harder for laypeople to parse. There are complicated arguments over how interest rates are determined and whether the government and private sectors compete for savings, for example. Mainstream economists argue that the correct parts of MMT aren't new and the new parts aren't correct. But MMTers point out that the establishment hasn't covered itself in glory in recent years—largely failing to foresee the global financial crisis a decade ago, for instance. Paul McCulley, the former chief economist of bond giant Pacific Investment Management Co., says that though he's "not a card-carrying MMTer," he believes it offers a "robust architecture for a fiat currency world."

In any case, the new textbook gives MMT a good slingshot. Samuelson, in the preface to the 1990 edition of his best-selling principles book, wrote, "I don't care who writes a nation's laws—or crafts its advanced treaties—if I can write its economics textbooks." Stephanie Kelton, an MMTer who was the economic adviser on Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign in 2016 and is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, sees the tide turning. In presentations, the Stony Brook University economist likes to flash up a quote that says, essentially: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: 11B4V on March 27, 2019, 08:22:52 PM
Every time she open her mouth a toilet flushes.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2019, 08:11:30 PM
Ocasio-Cortez is a proponent of modern monetary theory, which, if I understand it correctly says that government can print as much money as it wants as long as inflation remains under control.

No, that's what plain vanilla monetary theory says.  MMT says just print away.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on March 27, 2019, 08:35:59 PM
History is full of examples of governments printing too much money that results in hyperinflation. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2019, 08:44:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2019, 08:11:30 PM
Ocasio-Cortez is a proponent of modern monetary theory, which, if I understand it correctly says that government can print as much money as it wants as long as inflation remains under control.

No, that's what plain vanilla monetary theory says.  MMT says just print away.
That Forbes article and everything else I've read on them brings up inflation as the main constraint from the beginning. What have you read that says otherwise?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2019, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2019, 08:44:32 PM
That Forbes article and everything else I've read on them brings up inflation as the main constraint from the beginning. What have you read that says otherwise?

I don't recall the Economist article I read mentioning inflation, except as an obvious critique.

If you introduce an inflationary constraint into MMT, then you just have normal expansionary monetary policy during a recession, except that the newly printed money is going straight into funding of government spending instead of being lent out to banks to lower interest rates and increase investment. 

Of course, none of this sheds any light on why Aoki-san is talking about MMT at a time of full employment and heated up labor markets.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 27, 2019, 11:43:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2019, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2019, 02:56:53 PM
Will the 1% take their wealth with them?

Unless the 1% have all their wealth in cash I don't think that is possible :P
we'll need a galactic stock exchange. :cool:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 27, 2019, 11:56:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2019, 10:18:19 PM
Of course, none of this sheds any light on why Aoki-san is talking about MMT at a time of full employment and heated up labor markets.

because the GOP is raking immense deficits, it is hard to propose unlimited spending to add trillions on the trillions of debt you will inherit in 2020.  It's a convenient way to say "we can spend however we want, it is never going to be a problem, see this nice little theory we have here makes everything allright".

I've heard of this before, but not by this specific name.  And I think Krugman devoted a column debunking it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 28, 2019, 01:07:51 PM
There's a lot of confusion about MMT, some of which is caused by the MMT people themselves.
It's basically just a updated version of Functional Finance, a theory proposed by Abba Lerner in the 60s and 70s.

Lerner's theory is that there is no binding fiscal constraint on a country that borrows in its own currency because it can always just print more currency.  The constraint on the fiscal side is thus concern over inflation, not insolvency.  Taxes are raised to keep inflation and inflation expectations suppressed, not to finance spending. The MMT people basically took Lerner's ideas and surrounded them with a lot of jargon.

There's nothing really wrong with the theory. The conventional way to manage an economy is to have a fixed fiscal constraint - i.e. either a balance budget or more commonly a capped deficit target or 2 or 3 percent of GDP and then use monetary policy to manage demand.  But you could do it the other way around.  Target a nominal growth rate for the economy -whuch corresponds to a risk free nominal interest rate - and then use fiscal policy to hit the target. 

While economically, both these policy regimes should work and could work similarly, politically they operate differently given current institutions.  Using monetary policy to regulate demand means the responsibility is the hands of unelected experts at the Fed. Using fiscal policy puts it in the hands of Congress.

MMT has a leftist coloration because of the assumption that implementation of a MMT regime would involve using more spending as the way to generate demand and thus provide a macro-economic justification for things lefties want to do anyways.  But it doesn't have to work that way - you could implement MMT by freezing spending and then varying tax levels by eg using period tax rebates to generate deficits when desired.

The irony is that most prominent practioner of MMT right now is arguably the Trump Administration.  Trump's macro policy basically follows MMT - target a desired rate of nominal growth and then set a level of fiscal deficit to hit that target. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2019, 04:08:15 PM
I disagree that there is nothing wrong with this theory Joan.

First the assumption that countries which borrow in their own currency have no total debt constraint.  Investors' willingness to purchase government debt is contingent on the expectation of being repaid and the real return offered.  As debt/GDP increases not only does the government's ability to service its debt decrease, but so does its willingness.  And as we discussed countless times before, although one can inflate away existing debt problems, that creates its own serious problems, such as hyperinflation, the elimination of prices as signalling mechanisms, barterization, and erasing personal savings. This calculus doesn't change simply because your country is borrowing from its own residents.

Second the problem I mentioned above, that present proponents of MMT seem to have read a 7th grade Cliff Notes version of MMT (probably on Slate) and misunderstood it to mean that we can spend as much as we want, whenever we want, without worrying.

Third is absurdity of expecting the political system to deliver fiscal tightening in periods of overheating.  The Fed, in contrast, has shown it is capable of being a mean bastard when that is what is needed, precisely because of its independence.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on March 28, 2019, 07:52:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2019, 04:08:15 PM
Second the problem I mentioned above, that present proponents of MMT seem to have read a 7th grade Cliff Notes version of MMT (probably on Slate) and misunderstood it to mean that we can spend as much as we want, whenever we want, without worrying.
Bingo!

Proponents of such theory seem to imagine GDP will always grow due to constant public sector spending.  Therefore, debt/gdp is not important to their calculations because it remains stable.

Note as Joan said, it is the same thing as the GOP is doing by slashing taxes and building a wall: they expect so much GDP growth that the ratio will actually go down or at worst remain stable.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on March 28, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2019, 04:08:15 PM
First the assumption that countries which borrow in their own currency have no total debt constraint.  Investors' willingness to purchase government debt is contingent on the expectation of being repaid and the real return offered.  As debt/GDP increases not only does the government's ability to service its debt decrease, but so does its willingness.

At the extremes perhaps, but empirically that doesn't really hold. US Debt/GDP has nearly doubled since the Clinton years and looks likely to rise further but borrowing costs have gone way down.  As long as the real economy looks healthy and the dollar holds its value people will buy debt and not scruple at debt/GDP ratios over 100%.

Quotealthough one can inflate away existing debt problems, that creates its own serious problems, such as hyperinflation, the elimination of prices as signalling mechanisms, barterization, and erasing personal savings. This calculus doesn't change simply because your country is borrowing from its own residents.

That is true and acknowledged in theory by MMT in the sense that the fiscal balance must be managed to control inflation.

QuoteSecond the problem I mentioned above, that present proponents of MMT seem to have read a 7th grade Cliff Notes version of MMT (probably on Slate) and misunderstood it to mean that we can spend as much as we want, whenever we want, without worrying.

Quite so - I doubt Ocasio-Cortez has read the academic articles very carefully, she is just seizing on a theory that sounds helpful.

QuoteThird is absurdity of expecting the political system to deliver fiscal tightening in periods of overheating.  The Fed, in contrast, has shown it is capable of being a mean bastard when that is what is needed, precisely because of its independence.

I agree that whatever can be said of MMT as a matter of economic theory, it doesnt work as a matter of practical political economy.  The Fed has established a decent track record of competence on macro management since Volcker, despite some missteps. Congress doesn't inspire the same confidence.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2019, 10:45:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 28, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
At the extremes perhaps, but empirically that doesn't really hold. US Debt/GDP has nearly doubled since the Clinton years and looks likely to rise further but borrowing costs have gone way down.  As long as the real economy looks healthy and the dollar holds its value people will buy debt and not scruple at debt/GDP ratios over 100%.

It didn't hold empirically for Greece either, until it did.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on April 02, 2019, 11:46:43 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47754189

QuoteCanada warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, report says

Canada is warming on average at a rate twice as fast as the rest of the world, a new scientific report indicates.

The federal government climate report also warns that changes are already evident in many parts of the country and are projected to intensify.

Canada's Arctic has seen the deepest impact and will continue to warm at more than double the global rate.

The report suggests that many of the effects already seen are likely irreversible.

Canada's annual average temperature has increased by an estimated 1.7C (3F) since 1948, when nationwide temperatures were first recorded.

The largest temperature increases have been seen in the North, the Prairies, and in northern British Columbia.

Annual average temperature in northern Canada increased by approximately 2.3C.

"While both human activities and natural variations in the climate have contributed to the observed warming in Canada, the human factor is dominant," the report states.

"It is likely that more than half of the observed warming in Canada is due to the influence of human activities."

What are the effects?

The effects of global warming on Canada's environment include more extreme weather.

Hotter temperatures could mean more heat waves and a higher risk of wildfires and droughts in some parts of the country.

Oceans are expected to become more acidic and less oxygenated, which could harm marine life.

Parts of Canada's Arctic Ocean are projected to have extensive ice-free periods during summer within a few decades.

A rise in sea levels could also increase the risk of coastal flooding and more intense rainfall could cause problems with flooding in urban centres.

What caused Canada's warming?

Canada's rapid warming is due to a number of factors, including a loss of snow and sea ice, which is increasing the absorption of solar radiation and causing larger surface warming than in other regions, according to the report.

Despite the bleak projections, the report notes that the amount of warming could be limited if global action is taken by drastically reducing "carbon emissions to near zero early in the second half of the century and [reducing] emissions of other greenhouse gases substantially".

Canada is one of nearly 200 countries that have signed on to the Paris Agreement - a single global agreement on tackling climate change that seeks to keep temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial times and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C.

The Canadian government says it will meet the Paris target of cutting emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 despite the fact that a number of official reports indicate the country is unlikely to meet its reduction targets without significant effort.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on April 02, 2019, 11:53:29 AM
I know globally we are fucked, but how is Canada becoming warmer a bad thing for Canada or Canadians? :P

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 02, 2019, 11:53:29 AM
I know globally we are fucked, but how is Canada becoming warmer a bad thing for Canada or Canadians? :P



More raccoons and possums.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on April 02, 2019, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 02, 2019, 11:53:29 AM
I know globally we are fucked, but how is Canada becoming warmer a bad thing for Canada or Canadians? :P

It might, if their Southern neighbors decide Canada is more attractive to live in than their home countries.

(https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/all/themes/nca3/interactive/map-toggle/water-supplies-projected-decline/img/map-a2.jpg)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 02, 2019, 11:53:29 AM
I know globally we are fucked, but how is Canada becoming warmer a bad thing for Canada or Canadians? :P

Much of the infrastructure, housing, heck everything, in the North is built on permafrost.  As that melts everything is going to hell.

The North is basically turning into a large swampy bog unfit for what now inhabits that area.

For the world in general it is terrible news, as the permafrost melts it is releasing more greenhouse gases that had been locked into the permafrost (carbon dioxide and methane).  It is a feedback loop scientists had been warning would occur, and now that it is here, it may be too late to stop.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:01:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2019, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 02, 2019, 11:53:29 AM
I know globally we are fucked, but how is Canada becoming warmer a bad thing for Canada or Canadians? :P

It might, if their Southern neighbors decide Canada is more attractive to live in than their home countries.

(https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/all/themes/nca3/interactive/map-toggle/water-supplies-projected-decline/img/map-a2.jpg)

We are thinking about building a wall.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on April 02, 2019, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:00:42 PMFor the world in general it is terrible news, as the permafrost melts it is releasing more greenhouse gases that had been locked into the permafrost (carbon dioxide and methane).  It is a feedback loop scientists had been warning would occur, and now that it is here, it may be too late to stop.

Pretty much the same thing happens in Siberia, btw.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:03:06 PM
Guys, stop being fearmongers. Think of Ronald Reagan riding a dinosaur.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2019, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:00:42 PMFor the world in general it is terrible news, as the permafrost melts it is releasing more greenhouse gases that had been locked into the permafrost (carbon dioxide and methane).  It is a feedback loop scientists had been warning would occur, and now that it is here, it may be too late to stop.

Pretty much the same thing happens in Siberia, btw.

Yeah, I assume it is happening there too.  But the data was taken in Canada, thus the headline.

Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:03:06 PM
Guys, stop being fearmongers. Think of Ronald Reagan riding a dinosaur.

And the report was released the same day the Conservative party in Canada robo texted people to let them know they would repeal the carbon tax introduced yesterday.  Great timing.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on April 02, 2019, 12:06:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2019, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:00:42 PMFor the world in general it is terrible news, as the permafrost melts it is releasing more greenhouse gases that had been locked into the permafrost (carbon dioxide and methane).  It is a feedback loop scientists had been warning would occur, and now that it is here, it may be too late to stop.

Pretty much the same thing happens in Siberia, btw.

Yeah, I assume it is happening there too.  But the data was taken in Canada, thus the headline.

Add things like this: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/05/31/climate-change-is-making-the-arab-world-more-miserable

I expect even if we turned this around tomorrow, it would get significantly worse before it got better, and I suspect there'll be a lot more people traveling North than already do.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:08:10 PM
Yep, I am happy I live where I do.  :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:09:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:08:10 PM
Yep, I am happy I live where I do.  :)

If the result of this is that the developed world becomes more livable and the developing world becomes shittier that would just add insult to injury.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on April 02, 2019, 12:13:56 PM
Personally, I no longer look forward to summer. The number of days over 30 degrees, and nights over 20 degrees has been ticking up consistently in recent years (with the occasional dip).

Last year, Vienna had 120 "summer days" days over 25°C, of which 40 were over 30°C (defined as "heat days"). On top of that, 41 days with night time temperatures above 20 degrees. We regularly hit the upper 30s on at least a couple of days per summer now, getting close to 40.

More people die in Austria as a result of heat than of traffic accidents.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 12:16:53 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2019, 11:46:43 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47754189 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47754189)

QuoteCanada warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, report says

I planned on buying a new snowbile, but fuck it, I'm sticking with the ATV.

Quote
The Canadian government says it will meet the Paris target of cutting emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 despite the fact that a number of official reports indicate the country is unlikely to meet its reduction targets without significant effort.
This is bullshit.  The Canadian government has no plan, except to tax its citizen.  Quebec has already tried that and is also on its way to miss the target.

Current climate report indicates the govt has done nothing to reach its goals.  But I kinda predicted that, before the election. :(
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 12:17:41 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2019, 11:59:57 AM
It might, if their Southern neighbors decide Canada is more attractive to live in than their home countries.
We'll build a wall and have the US pay for it! :mad:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:18:47 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 12:17:41 PM
We'll build a wall and have the US pay for it! :mad:

Sorry, we are broke.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 12:20:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:00:42 PM
For the world in general it is terrible news, as the permafrost melts it is releasing more greenhouse gases that had been locked into the permafrost (carbon dioxide and methane).  It is a feedback loop scientists had been warning would occur, and now that it is here, it may be too late to stop.
I do wonder if these gazes can be extracted safely, before they are naturally released in the atmosphere.

On the plus side, we might unearth some mammoths, clone them and create a themed park...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:24:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 12:20:56 PM
On the plus side, we might unearth some mammoths, clone them and create a themed park...

And then clone Ronald Reagan and have him ride them around?

QuoteI do wonder if these gazes can be extracted safely, before they are naturally released in the atmosphere.

Well it is such a huge surface area and is happening so gradually that strikes me as not a practical solution.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:09:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:08:10 PM
Yep, I am happy I live where I do.  :)

If the result of this is that the developed world becomes more livable and the developing world becomes shittier that would just add insult to injury.

Sure, but I my comment was directed to the fact I would much rather be in Vancouver than anywhere in the US (except perhaps parts of Washington State, Oregon and Alaska).
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Sure, but I my comment was directed to the fact I would much rather be in Vancouver than anywhere in the US (except perhaps parts of Washington State, Oregon and Alaska).

Ah but the article Syt posted was about the arabs moving north. Anyway, fair enough.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Sure, but I my comment was directed to the fact I would much rather be in Vancouver than anywhere in the US (except perhaps parts of Washington State, Oregon and Alaska).

Ah but the article Syt posted was about the arabs moving north. Anyway, fair enough.

I am quite happy to have immigrants coming into Canada.  As people flee less habitable places our economy will grow.  The trick is going to be to ensure we make the right choices about how we produce our energy and use the land resources we have as that occurs.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Sure, but I my comment was directed to the fact I would much rather be in Vancouver than anywhere in the US (except perhaps parts of Washington State, Oregon and Alaska).

Ah but the article Syt posted was about the arabs moving north. Anyway, fair enough.

I am quite happy to have immigrants coming into Canada.  As people flee less habitable places our economy will grow.  The trick is going to be to ensure we make the right choices about how we produce our energy and use the land resources we have as that occurs.

As welcome as the refugees might be made in Canada, I would be sad if their countries were ruined. And it would seem especially unjust since they were producing significantly less emissions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:46:10 PM
I agree.  But the time to take action to prevent that is almost over.

The terrifying truth is that humans make decisions to act based on individual circumstances not where there are global adverse effects, no matter how dire.  I am beginning to think there is no shot at stopping global warming going over 1.5 and very little chance of going over 2.0
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on April 02, 2019, 02:38:11 PM
Ive pretty much concluded that humans suck and we are probably fucked.

Seems more and more likely that this may be one of the Great Filters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:24:01 PM
Well it is such a huge surface area and is happening so gradually that strikes me as not a practical solution.
yeah, I was hoping they would be in some kind of scattered "pockets".  You're most likely right.  Oh well.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 02:43:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 12:36:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:33:40 PM
Sure, but I my comment was directed to the fact I would much rather be in Vancouver than anywhere in the US (except perhaps parts of Washington State, Oregon and Alaska).

Ah but the article Syt posted was about the arabs moving north. Anyway, fair enough.
Africa is already moving toward Europe, so one way or another, Algeria will again be part of the French Empire. :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 02, 2019, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:46:10 PM
I agree.  But the time to take action to prevent that is almost over.

The terrifying truth is that humans make decisions to act based on individual circumstances not where there are global adverse effects, no matter how dire.  I am beginning to think there is no shot at stopping global warming going over 1.5 and very little chance of going over 2.0
Well, instead of saying "We must act now to save the polar bears", try campaigning on keeping global warming below 1.5C to keep the Arabs on their lands.  That will work on all side of the political spectrum ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on April 02, 2019, 07:40:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2019, 12:46:10 PM


The terrifying truth is that humans make decisions to act based on individual circumstances not where there are global adverse effects, no matter how dire.  I am beginning to think there is no shot at stopping global warming going over 1.5 and very little chance of going over 2.0

Finally, we reached agreement after all these years :hug:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 07:46:56 PM
Hey you two live in coastal cities. Good luck in the new Pacific Venices.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on April 02, 2019, 08:51:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 07:46:56 PM
Hey you two live in coastal cities. Good luck in the new Pacific Venices.

Talking of which this is Male, is the capital of the Maldives.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Filiketowastemytime.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMale-Capital-Maldives.jpg&hash=97a450a5fb97440c47991ae6b6e7b56c4df695bc)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 10:44:33 PM
What a beautiful city.

The Maldives are likely a doomed nation, sadly.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on April 02, 2019, 10:49:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 10:44:33 PM
What a beautiful city.

The Maldives are likely a doomed nation, sadly.

Going to Maldives is unbelievably expensive.  The costs aren't third world at all. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 10:51:33 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 02, 2019, 10:49:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 10:44:33 PM
What a beautiful city.

The Maldives are likely a doomed nation, sadly.

Going to Maldives is unbelievably expensive.  The costs aren't third world at all. 

Interesting. I guess with all those Arab billionaires and all of India close by their tourism market must be booming.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2019, 11:08:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2019, 10:45:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 28, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
At the extremes perhaps, but empirically that doesn't really hold. US Debt/GDP has nearly doubled since the Clinton years and looks likely to rise further but borrowing costs have gone way down.  As long as the real economy looks healthy and the dollar holds its value people will buy debt and not scruple at debt/GDP ratios over 100%.

It didn't hold empirically for Greece either, until it did.

Greece didn't have debt in it's own currency.

Japan has 250% of it's GDP in debt.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2019, 11:22:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2019, 11:08:58 PM
Greece didn't have debt in it's own currency.
You're confusing the argument about whether a country can monetize its own debt with the argument about whether investors will continue to purchase government debt as the debt/GDP ratio approaches infinity.  Joan and I were discussing the second point.

QuoteJapan has 250% of it's GDP in debt.
And dozens of countries have defaulted with debt in the 40-60% range.  Some multiple times.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on April 03, 2019, 05:33:28 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 02, 2019, 10:49:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 10:44:33 PM
What a beautiful city.

The Maldives are likely a doomed nation, sadly.

Going to Maldives is unbelievably expensive.  The costs aren't third world at all.

Why would it be cheap? It's a luxury destination for foreign tourists, and everything has to be flown in. The islands themselves don't produce barely anything.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Larch on April 03, 2019, 06:00:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 10:51:33 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 02, 2019, 10:49:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 10:44:33 PM
What a beautiful city.

The Maldives are likely a doomed nation, sadly.

Going to Maldives is unbelievably expensive.  The costs aren't third world at all. 

Interesting. I guess with all those Arab billionaires and all of India close by their tourism market must be booming.

I believe most visitors to the Maldives are European, although Chinese are the first overall. Their tourism industry has been booming for several decades already, they're not a newly discovered place in any way.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on April 03, 2019, 08:33:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<

That's how I feel about my ancestors too!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 03, 2019, 10:07:02 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<
lol :D
I blame Cartier and Champlain.  Most of their men died in their first winter, yet, they kept coming for more! :P

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on April 03, 2019, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 03, 2019, 10:07:02 AM

I blame Cartier and Champlain.  Most of their men died in their first winter, yet, they kept coming for more! :P

It is funny to live in a great country founded almost entirely because of a strange fashion for beaver hats.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 03, 2019, 11:51:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 03, 2019, 10:07:02 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<
lol :D
I blame Cartier and Champlain.  Most of their men died in their first winter, yet, they kept coming for more! :P

Could be worse, your ancestors didn't settle in Saskatchewan or Northern Manitoba.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on April 03, 2019, 12:38:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 03, 2019, 11:11:19 AMIt is funny to live in a great country founded almost entirely because of a strange fashion for beaver hats.  :hmm:

:hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on April 03, 2019, 12:43:14 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 03, 2019, 12:38:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 03, 2019, 11:11:19 AMIt is funny to live in a great country founded almost entirely because of a strange fashion for beaver hats.  :hmm:

:hmm:

If everyone in Europe wore wool tuques for the past four hundred years ...  :D
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on April 03, 2019, 01:32:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 03, 2019, 12:43:14 PM
If everyone in Europe wore wool tuques for the past four hundred years ...  :D

They'd still be eating cod...

(I understand the good-natured joke. But Standards of Professional Conduct force me to raise a skeptical eyebrow at the lousy history behind the quip.)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2019, 03:58:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2019, 11:22:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2019, 11:08:58 PM
Greece didn't have debt in it's own currency.
You're confusing the argument about whether a country can monetize its own debt with the argument about whether investors will continue to purchase government debt as the debt/GDP ratio approaches infinity.  Joan and I were discussing the second point.

QuoteJapan has 250% of it's GDP in debt.
And dozens of countries have defaulted with debt in the 40-60% range.  Some multiple times.

Which gets to the point that debt/GDP ratio has its limitations as a metric for national financial health and stability.

MMT, as I understand it, is not a free lunch theory, it is just a different way of thinking about the decision matrix and trade-offs that national economies face with respect to macro policy.
The way I would put it is:
1) MMTers see mainstream macro as an "as if" theory - i.e. mainstream macro views the economy and the available policy instruments "as if" there is a binding budget constraint and a limited stock of lendable funds when in fact that isn't strictly true.
2) the response is that the mainstream policy regime can still work within an MMT framework, and that the alternative regime - using discretionary fiscal policy as the regular and principal tool of demand management -- makes assumptions about institutions that control that policy tool that are not realistic.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 04:28:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2019, 03:58:37 PM
Which gets to the point that debt/GDP ratio has its limitations as a metric for national financial health and stability.

MMT, as I understand it, is not a free lunch theory, it is just a different way of thinking about the decision matrix and trade-offs that national economies face with respect to macro policy.
The way I would put it is:
1) MMTers see mainstream macro as an "as if" theory - i.e. mainstream macro views the economy and the available policy instruments "as if" there is a binding budget constraint and a limited stock of lendable funds when in fact that isn't strictly true.
2) the response is that the mainstream policy regime can still work within an MMT framework, and that the alternative regime - using discretionary fiscal policy as the regular and principal tool of demand management -- makes assumptions about institutions that control that policy tool that are not realistic.
There may not be a hard, universal cap on debt that applies to all countries, but that's not the same as saying there is no cap and countries can borrow to infinity.  At the most extreme end point there is the cap of debt service consuming 100% of GDP, and all your tax payers have died from starvation or exposure.*

You may say MMT is not free lunch, but then you need to disregard the claim that "countries with their debt denominated in a currency of their own issuing can borrow as much as they want."

If you eliminate that claim then all I can see remaining is a preference for managing the business cycle through fiscal policy as opposed to monetary policy.  Which is actually a pretty conservative macro system, not least for the reason that it means running consistent surpluses in inflationary periods.

Except for those debt holders still receiving their coupons.  :lol:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: dps on April 03, 2019, 04:34:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2019, 08:33:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<

That's how I feel about my ancestors too!

GF, depending on when they came over, you should be glad they didn't pick the Caribbean--back in the day, Europeans who settled there tended to die off fairly quickly from malaria and the like.  By the 1980's, Zoupa's folks wouldn't have had that excuse.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on April 03, 2019, 04:50:53 PM
So what are 'we' going to do about *this?





* but this I mean climate change, not the debate about where French people go for extended holidays.  ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 03, 2019, 04:50:53 PM
So what are 'we' going to do about *this?

Right now, not much. 

Or do you mean what should we do?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 03, 2019, 04:56:31 PM
Sadly, the "we" has to be at the level of the nation state to recruit the resources needed to restructure how electricity is produced. delivered and used.  The "we" as individuals need to elect governments who will do that.  Ideally all political parties would compete for votes on the basis of having the best plan to identify and achieve what needs to be done.  But, again sadly, very few political parties are doing so in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2019, 04:59:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 04:28:38 PM
You may say MMT is not free lunch, but then you need to disregard the claim that "countries with their debt denominated in a currency of their own issuing can borrow as much as they want."

They can but at the limit the price is potential hyperinflation, i.e. early Weimar Germany or late Mugabe Zimbabwe as opposed to Greece.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2019, 04:59:39 PM
They can but at the limit the price is potential hyperinflation, i.e. early Weimar Germany or late Mugabe Zimbabwe as opposed to Greece.

The limit comes before that, at the point an investor knows the only options are default or hyperinflation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on April 03, 2019, 08:04:31 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 03, 2019, 04:50:53 PM
So what are 'we' going to do about *this?





* but this I mean climate change, not the debate about where French people go for extended holidays.  ;)

There is no "we" in this.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 08:32:38 PM
...which raises the free rider issue.  IMO the best way to deal with that would be global trade sanctions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on April 03, 2019, 08:48:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 08:32:38 PM
...which raises the free rider issue.  IMO the best way to deal with that would be global trade sanctions.

Europe is going to sanction the US?  Not much can be done if the US, China and India don't cooperate. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 03, 2019, 08:52:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2019, 04:56:31 PM
Sadly, the "we" has to be at the level of the nation state to recruit the resources needed to restructure how electricity is produced. delivered and used.  The "we" as individuals need to elect governments who will do that.  Ideally all political parties would compete for votes on the basis of having the best plan to identify and achieve what needs to be done.  But, again sadly, very few political parties are doing so in any meaningful way.
Easily for us, in Quebec and BC, we can get our electricity from hydro power (limited GHG) and export it.

If we had amplus surplus of oil that we could use for power, would we be so adamant to push for change on how we produce that?

Hydro-Quebec wanted to buy NB Power at some time.  That caused quite a stir in English Canada.  Even excusing the traditional Quebec bashing, lots of provinces do not want to relinquish their energy production.  If BC Power was to take over Alberta Power and shut down all their thermal plants, I'm not sure it would go over that well.

Anyway.  In the mean time, we could at least stup those stupid subsidies to the oil industry.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 03, 2019, 08:53:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 08:32:38 PM
...which raises the free rider issue.  IMO the best way to deal with that would be global trade sanctions.
that would be the ideal solution.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2019, 08:48:08 PM
Europe is going to sanction the US?  Not much can be done if the US, China and India don't cooperate.

Obviously.  So it will be some time before you need to start worrying about personal sanctions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 04, 2019, 08:19:30 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2019, 08:48:08 PM
Europe is going to sanction the US?  Not much can be done if the US, China and India don't cooperate.

Obviously.  So it will be some time before you need to start worrying about personal sanctions.
With so many hard drives filled to the brim with anime, Mono has got to be responsible for a third of Hong Kong's power consumption. ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on April 04, 2019, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2019, 04:34:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2019, 08:33:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<

That's how I feel about my ancestors too!

GF, depending on when they came over, you should be glad they didn't pick the Caribbean--back in the day, Europeans who settled there tended to die off fairly quickly from malaria and the like.  By the 1980's, Zoupa's folks wouldn't have had that excuse.

My first ancestor showed up in, what is now Quebec city, 1648.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: derspiess on April 04, 2019, 10:06:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 04, 2019, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2019, 04:34:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2019, 08:33:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<

That's how I feel about my ancestors too!

GF, depending on when they came over, you should be glad they didn't pick the Caribbean--back in the day, Europeans who settled there tended to die off fairly quickly from malaria and the like.  By the 1980's, Zoupa's folks wouldn't have had that excuse.

My first ancestor showed up in, what is now Quebec city, 1648.

Wise choice. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 04, 2019, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 04, 2019, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: dps on April 03, 2019, 04:34:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2019, 08:33:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 03, 2019, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 02, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
A couple of friends went to the Maldives for honeymoon. What a waste of money. Just fly to the caribbean for 10% of what you spent idiots.

Plus they speak French there.

Just came back from Martinique. I can;t believe my parents picked Montreal over Fort de France 30 years ago  <_<

That's how I feel about my ancestors too!

GF, depending on when they came over, you should be glad they didn't pick the Caribbean--back in the day, Europeans who settled there tended to die off fairly quickly from malaria and the like.  By the 1980's, Zoupa's folks wouldn't have had that excuse.

My first ancestor showed up in, what is now Quebec city, 1648.
Mine arrived in 1635, got his first lands in 1649 and 1659.  :)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on April 04, 2019, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2019, 10:06:17 AM
Wise choice. 
From there, they went downhill, finally settling on Montreal's south shore :(  Had he known his descendants would suffer with pollution and traffic, he might have made a wiser choice :(
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on April 12, 2019, 04:56:58 PM
The arctic is about 2 degrees Celsius warmer than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

QuoteThe temperatures recorded today are even higher than the previous highs believed to have occurred during the early Holocene period, about 9,900 and 6,400 years ago, when Earth's axis was tilted more strongly toward the sun, the report states.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-warmest-in-10000-years-1.5094392

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on May 01, 2019, 10:51:02 AM
What if air conditionners could help save the planet? (https://www.wired.com/story/what-if-air-conditioners-could-help-save-the-planet/)

Quotearth's climate is full of terrifying feedback loops: Decreased rainfall raises the risk of wildfires, which release yet more carbon dioxide. A warming Arctic could trigger the release of long-frozen methane, which would heat the planet even faster than carbon. A lesser-known climate feedback loop, though, is likely mere feet from where you're sitting: the air conditioner. Use of the energy-intensive appliance causes emissions that contribute to higher global temperatures, which means we're all using AC more, producing more emissions and more warming.

But what if we could weaponize air conditioning units to help pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere instead? According to a new paper in Nature, it's feasible. Using technology currently in development, AC units in skyscrapers and even your home could get turned into machines that not only capture CO2, but transform the stuff into a fuel for powering vehicles that are difficult to electrify, like cargo ships. The concept, called crowd oil, is still theoretical and faces many challenges. But in these desperate times, crowd oil might have a place in the fight to curb climate change.
[/b]

Interesting tech, if it can be developped into a practical application.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on May 02, 2019, 11:51:49 PM
Amsterdam to ban all diesel and petrol cars, motorcycles by 2030. This should be interesting.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 02, 2019, 11:58:33 PM
That's plenty of time to backtrack.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2019, 01:32:28 PM
The UN is going to release a report on Monday which states that unless immediate action is taken 1m species are going to go extinct in the couple of decades.  This shouldn't come as much of a surprise.  What is critical is this part of the report:

QuoteThe report will sketch out possible future scenarios that will vary depending on the decisions taken by governments, businesses and individuals. The next year and a half is likely to be crucial because world leaders will agree rescue plans for nature and the climate at two big conferences at the end of 2020.

You can do your own analysis of how that works with electoral cycles in various countries.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/03/climate-crisis-is-about-to-put-humanity-at-risk-un-scientists-warn



Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on May 06, 2019, 07:20:27 AM
We are so fucked

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48169783
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on May 06, 2019, 07:45:46 AM
Quote from: Maladict on May 06, 2019, 07:20:27 AM
We are so fucked

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48169783

bbbut, shareholder value!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on May 13, 2019, 03:23:43 PM
Atmospheric CO2 reaches record 415ppm, the highest its been in millions of years (https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/atmospheric-co2-reaches-record-415ppm-the-highest-its-been-in-millions-of-years/)

QuoteThe year's increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been partly fueled by El Niño conditions — changes in the sea-surface temperature of the tropical Pacific Ocean. This warms and dries tropical ecosystems, reducing their uptake of carbon, and exacerbating forest fires. However, the main factor responsible for the upward trend is, by far, the burning of fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on May 13, 2019, 03:31:17 PM
By this time in the fire season BC normally only has had 11 wild fires.  We have 27 as of today.  The warming drier climate is having its effect, and all of those trees going up in flames creates its own feedback loop.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2019, 05:09:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2019, 07:45:46 AM
bbbut, shareholder value!

bbbut, consumer convenience!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on May 14, 2019, 01:10:47 AM
Bill Nye summarizes the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDcro7dPqpA&feature=youtu.be&t=1114
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on May 14, 2019, 01:28:25 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 14, 2019, 01:10:47 AM
Bill Nye summarizes the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDcro7dPqpA&feature=youtu.be&t=1114

I watched this yesterday, and I assumed that the science guy was just some random contract actor.  Didn't realise that John Oliver hired somebody famous. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Grey Fox on May 14, 2019, 07:27:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2019, 05:09:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2019, 07:45:46 AM
bbbut, shareholder value!

bbbut, consumer convenience!

Also dumb, probably dumber.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on May 24, 2019, 09:29:20 AM
You'll be happy to learn from pro-government (i.e. government-sanctioned) Hungarian media sources, that Europe-wide student protests today have been sponsored by Soros in an attempt to steal young people's votes from the anti-immigration parties in the European election.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 30, 2019, 10:54:35 PM
Apocalyptic

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/record-breaking-heat-alaska-wreaks-havoc-communities-and-ecosystems-180972317/#0mMl8oEPWZuEhicK.99
QuoteRecord-Breaking Heat in Alaska Wreaks Havoc on Communities and Ecosystems

Abnormally high temperatures have led to unsafe travel conditions, uncertain ecological futures and even multiple deaths

By Tim Lydon, Hakai Magazine
SMITHSONIAN.COM
MAY 30, 2019 1:22PM

Alaska in March is supposed to be cold. Along the north and west coasts, the ocean should be frozen farther than the eye can see. In the state's interior, rivers should be locked in ice so thick that they double as roads for snowmobiles and trucks. And where I live, near Anchorage in south-central Alaska, the snowpack should be deep enough to support skiing for weeks to come. But this year, a record-breaking heatwave upended norms and had us basking in comfortable—but often unsettling—warmth.

Across Alaska, March temperatures averaged 11 degrees Celsius above normal. The deviation was most extreme in the Arctic where, on March 30, thermometers rose almost 22 degrees Celsius above normal—to 3 degrees. That still sounds cold, but it was comparatively hot.

"It's hard to characterize that anomaly, it's just pretty darn remarkable for that part of the world," says Rick Thoman, a climate specialist with the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy in Fairbanks. The state's wave of warmth was part of a weeks-long weather pattern that shattered temperature records across our immense state, contributing to losses of both property and life. "When you have a slow grind of warming like that, lasting weeks or months, it affects people's lives," Thoman says.

On April 15, three people, including an 11-year-old girl, died after their snowmobiles plunged through thin ice on the Noatak River in far northwestern Alaska. Earlier in the winter, 700 kilometers south, on the lower Kuskokwim River, at least five people perished in separate incidents when their snowmobiles or four-wheelers broke through thin ice. There were close calls too, including the rescue of three miners who spent hours hopping between disintegrating ice floes in the Bering Sea near Nome. Farther south, people skating on the popular Portage Lake near Anchorage also fell through thin ice. Varying factors contributed to these and other mishaps, but abnormally thin ice was a common denominator.

In Alaska, ice is infrastructure. For example, the Kuskokwim River, which runs over 1,100 kilometers across southwestern Alaska, freezes so solid that it becomes a marked ice road connecting dozens of communities spread over 300 kilometers. In sparsely populated interior Alaska, frozen rivers are indispensable for transporting goods, visiting family and delivering kids to school basketball games.

Along Alaska's west coast, the frozen waters of the Bering Sea also act as infrastructure. Each winter, frigid air transforms much of the Bering between Russia and Alaska into sea ice. As it fastens to shore, the ice provides platforms for fishing and hunting, and safe routes between communities. It also prevents wave action and storm surges from eroding the shores of coastal villages.

The steady decline of sea ice is old news, but 2019 brought exceptional conditions. In January, a series of warm storms began breaking apart the ice, which had formed late and was thinner than usual. By late March, the Bering Sea was largely open, at a time when the ice usually reaches its maximum for the year, which historically has been as much as 900,000 square kilometers (more than twice the size of the province of Alberta). In April, U.S. federal scientists reported coverage was even lower than the unprecedented low extent of 2018. By mid-May, ice that should have persisted into June was almost entirely gone.

Declining sea ice and melting permafrost are having devastating impacts on Alaskan villages. Since 2003, the United States Government Accountability Office has identified at least 31 communities at risk, with erosion imperiling homes, roads and drinking water sources. Three villages—Kivalina, Newtok and Shishmaref—must relocate soon or cease to exist, a traumatic reality brought into sharper focus by the warm 2019 winter.

In an added hardship, disappearing ice cuts off access to hunting and fishing routes, and the warming ocean is changing where fish and marine mammals can be found. This has real nutritional consequences in a land where many residents still rely on subsistence hunting and fishing. Commercial crab, cod and pollock fleets also wrestle with the changes.


Beyond the immediate impacts on people and infrastructure, less ice in the Bering and in the neighboring Chukchi Sea to the north have far-reaching atmospheric effects in Alaska. As Thoman explains, the massive area of newly open water creates warmer air temperatures and provides more moisture to storms. It can increase coastal erosion and winter rain or even produce heavier snow far inland. Researchers are also investigating whether disappearing sea ice is affecting continental weather patterns.

Meanwhile, hundreds of kilometers south of the Bering, the balmy winter contributed to above-average sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska. Scientists say the gulf is certain to warm further during the upcoming summer. For many, including Rob Campbell, a biological oceanographer with the Prince William Sound Science Center, it stirs unpleasant memories of the Blob, an enormous patch of warm water that formed in the Gulf of Alaska in 2013. It lasted over two years and upset ecological norms across our region.

"Today we don't see as much heat in the gulf as we had beginning in 2013," says Campbell. "But in general, the northern gulf is 1.5 degrees Celsius above average. It's a big anomaly heading into summer."

Campbell finds the conditions worrisome. "Continued warmth like this has cascading effects," he says. "And we may not understand the consequences for species like salmon for years to come."

As spring rolls into summer, temperatures have moderated somewhat, but above-average warmth still dominates across much of Alaska. It's especially true in the Arctic, where May temperatures at some locations have been higher than normal nearly every day, sometimes by as much as 10 degrees Celsius. As a result, sea ice and snowpacks are at record lows. To scientists, village elders and others, it is the latest indication of the transformational changes accelerating across the north.


Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on June 04, 2019, 11:03:26 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html

QuoteTrump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science

WASHINGTON — President Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term "global warming" into a punch line rather than a prognosis.

Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump's hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

And, in what could be Mr. Trump's most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.

Mr. Trump is less an ideologue than an armchair naysayer about climate change, according to people who know him. He came into office viewing agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency as bastions of what he calls the "deep state," and his contempt for their past work on the issue is an animating factor in trying to force them to abandon key aspects of the methodology they use to try to understand the causes and consequences of a dangerously warming planet.

As a result, parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet and presenting a picture of what the earth could look like by the end of the century if the global economy continues to emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels.

The attack on science is underway throughout the government. In the most recent example, the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.

Scientists say that would give a misleading picture because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040. Models show that the planet will most likely warm at about the same rate through about 2050. From that point until the end of the century, however, the rate of warming differs significantly with an increase or decrease in carbon emissions.

The administration's prime target has been the National Climate Assessment, produced by an interagency task force roughly every four years since 2000. Government scientists used computer-generated models in their most recent report to project that if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked, the earth's atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences.

Work on the next report, which is expected to be released in 2021 or 2022, has already begun. But from now on, officials said, such worst-case scenario projections will not automatically be included in the National Climate Assessment or in some other scientific reports produced by the government.

"What we have here is a pretty blatant attempt to politicize the science — to push the science in a direction that's consistent with their politics," said Philip B. Duffy, the president of the Woods Hole Research Center, who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the government's most recent National Climate Assessment. "It reminds me of the Soviet Union."

In an email, James Hewitt, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, defended the proposed changes.

"The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future," Mr. Hewitt said.

However, the goal of political appointees in the Trump administration is not just to change the climate assessment's methodology, which has broad scientific consensus, but also to question its conclusions by creating a new climate review panel. That effort is led by a 79-year-old physicist who had a respected career at Princeton but has become better known in recent years for attacking the science of man-made climate change and for defending the virtues of carbon dioxide — sometimes to an awkward degree.

"The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler," the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the president's deputy assistant for emerging technologies, said in 2014 in an interview with CNBC.

Mr. Happer's proposed panel is backed by John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser, who brought Mr. Happer into the N.S.C. after an earlier effort to recruit him during the transition.

Mr. Happer and Mr. Bolton are both beneficiaries of Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the far-right billionaire and his daughter who have funded efforts to debunk climate science. The Mercers gave money to a super PAC affiliated with Mr. Bolton before he entered government and to an advocacy group headed by Mr. Happer.

Climate scientists are dismissive of Mr. Happer; his former colleagues at Princeton are chagrined. And several White House officials — including Larry Kudlow, the president's chief economic adviser — have urged Mr. Trump not to adopt Mr. Happer's proposal, on the grounds that it would be perceived as a White House attack on science.

Even Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House strategist who views Mr. Happer as "the climate hustler's worst nightmare — a world-class physicist from the nation's leading institution of advanced learning, who does not suffer fools gladly," is apprehensive about what Mr. Happer is trying to do.

"The very idea will start a holy war on cable before 2020," he said. "Better to win now and introduce the study in the second inaugural address."

But at a White House meeting on May 1, at which the skeptical advisers made their case, Mr. Trump appeared unpersuaded, people familiar with the meeting said. Mr. Happer, they said, is optimistic that the panel will go forward.

The concept is not new. Mr. Trump has pushed to resurrect the idea of a series of military-style exercises, known as "red team, blue team" debates, on the validity of climate science first promoted by Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator who was forced to resign last year amid multiple scandals.

At the time, the idea was shot down by John F. Kelly, then the White House chief of staff. But since Mr. Kelly's departure, Mr. Trump has talked about using Mr. Happer's proposed panel as a forum for it.

For Mr. Trump, climate change is often the subject of mockery. "Wouldn't be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!" he posted on Twitter in January when a snowstorm was freezing much of the country.

His views are influenced mainly by friends and donors like Carl Icahn, the New York investor who owns oil refineries, and the oil-and-gas billionaire Harold Hamm — both of whom pushed Mr. Trump to deregulate the energy industry.

Mr. Trump's daughter Ivanka made a well-publicized effort to talk him out of leaving the Paris accord in 2017. But after being vanquished by officials including Mr. Bannon, Mr. Pruitt, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, there is little evidence she has resisted his approach since then.

The president's advisers amplify his disregard. At the meeting of the eight-nation Arctic Council this month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dismayed fellow diplomats by describing the rapidly warming region as a land of "opportunity and abundance" because of its untapped reserves of oil, gas, uranium, gold, fish and rare-earth minerals. The melting sea ice, he said, was opening up new shipping routes.

"That is one of the most crude messages one could deliver," said R. Nicholas Burns, who served as the NATO ambassador under George W. Bush.

At the National Security Council, under Mr. Bolton, officials said they had been instructed to strip references to global warming from speeches and other formal statements. But such political edicts pale in significance to the changes in the methodology of scientific reports.

Mr. Reilly, the head of the Geological Survey, who does not have a background in climate change science, characterized the changes as an attempt to prepare more careful, accurate reports. "We're looking for answers with our partners and to get statistical significance from what we understand," he said.

Yet scientists said that by eliminating the projected effects of increased carbon dioxide pollution after 2040, the Geological Survey reports would present an incomplete and falsely optimistic picture of the impact of continuing to burn unlimited amounts of coal, oil and gasoline.

"The scenarios in these reports that show different outcomes are like going to the doctor, who tells you, 'If you don't change your bad eating habits, and you don't start to exercise, you'll need a quadruple bypass, but if you do change your lifestyle, you'll have a different outcome,'" said Katharine Hayhoe, the director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and an author of the National Climate Assessment.

Not all government science agencies are planning such changes. A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, asked if its scientists would limit the use of climate models, wrote in an email, "No changes are being considered at this time."

The push to alter the results of at least some climate science reports, several officials said, came after November's release of the second volume of the National Climate Assessment.

While the Trump administration did not try to rewrite the scientific conclusions of the report, officials sought to play it down — releasing it the day after Thanksgiving — and discredit it, with a White House statement calling it "largely based on the most extreme scenario."

Still, the report could create legal problems for Mr. Trump's agenda of abolishing regulations. This summer, the E.P.A. is expected to finalize the legal rollback of two of President Barack Obama's most consequential policies: federal regulations to curb planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes and power plant smokestacks.

Opponents say that when they challenge the moves in court, they intend to point to the climate assessment, asking how the government can justify the reversals when its own agencies have concluded that the pollution will be so harmful.

That is why officials are now discussing how to influence the conclusions of the next National Climate Assessment
.

"They've started talking about how they can produce a report that doesn't lead to some silly alarmist predictions about the future," said Myron Ebell, who heads the energy program at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded research organization, and who led the administration's transition at the E.P.A.

A key change, he said, would be to emphasize historic temperatures rather than models of future atmospheric temperatures, and to eliminate the "worst-case scenarios" of the effect of increased carbon dioxide pollution — sometimes referred to as "business as usual" scenarios because they imply no efforts to curb emissions.

Scientists said that eliminating the worst-case scenario would give a falsely optimistic picture. "Nobody in the world does climate science like that," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton. "It would be like designing cars without seatbelts or airbags."

Outside the United States, climate scientists had long given up on the White House being anything but on outlier in policy. But they worry about the loss of the government as a source for reliable climate research.

"It is very unfortunate and potentially even quite damaging that the Trump administration behaves this way," said Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. "There is this arrogance and disrespect for scientific advancement — this very demoralizing lack of respect for your own experts and agencies."

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2019, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 04, 2019, 11:03:26 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html

Quote
The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler," the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the president's deputy assistant for emerging technologies, said in 2014 in an interview with CNBC.

FFS
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: frunk on June 04, 2019, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2019, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 04, 2019, 11:03:26 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html

Quote
The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler," the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the president's deputy assistant for emerging technologies, said in 2014 in an interview with CNBC.

FFS

We've started treating companies like people, can molecules be far behind?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on June 04, 2019, 12:45:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 04, 2019, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 04, 2019, 11:03:26 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html

Quote
The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler," the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the president's deputy assistant for emerging technologies, said in 2014 in an interview with CNBC.

FFS


Well he is the one calling for carbon-dioxide to be burned. WHO IS THE NAZI NOW?!!!111
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on June 18, 2019, 12:22:40 PM
 :(

https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 18, 2019, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: Maladict on June 18, 2019, 12:22:40 PM
:(

https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120

I got a good look at Greenland on our flight back from Europe - there are lots of deep wide trenches running down to the sea formed from glacier flows that used to be there.  It looks like a massive abandoned open pit mining operation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on June 18, 2019, 12:41:57 PM
really cool looking picture though. Jesus dogs
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Barrister on June 18, 2019, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2019, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: Maladict on June 18, 2019, 12:22:40 PM
:(

https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120

I got a good look at Greenland on our flight back from Europe - there are lots of deep wide trenches running down to the sea formed from glacier flows that used to be there.  It looks like a massive abandoned open pit mining operation.

To be fair you don't know how long ago those glaciers melted.  There are tons of places that look like that - but the glacial retreated 100+ years ago.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 18, 2019, 01:35:53 PM
Given the dramatic rate of glacier melt that has occurred over the last 20 years (and particularly the last 10) I highly doubt what I was looking at dated to 1919.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on June 26, 2019, 04:26:29 AM
Everything seems to be going well.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis

Quote
G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis
Major economies pledged a decade ago to phase out all aid for fossil fuels


G20 countries have almost tripled the subsidies they give to coal-fired power plants in recent years, despite the urgent need to cut the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis.

The bloc of major economies pledged a decade ago to phase out all fossil fuel subsidies.

The figures, published in a report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and others, show that Japan is one of the biggest financial supporters of coal, despite the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, having said in September: "Climate change can be life-threatening to all generations ... We must take more robust actions and reduce the use of fossil fuels." The annual G20 meeting begins in Japan on Friday.

China and India give the biggest subsidies to coal, with Japan third, followed by South Africa, South Korea, Indonesia and the US. While the UK frequently runs its own electricity grid without any coal power at all, a parliamentary report in June criticised the billions of pounds used to help to build fossil fuel power plants overseas.

Global emissions must fall by half in the next decade to avoid significantly worsening drought, floods, extreme heatwave and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. But emissions are still increasing, with coal-fired power the biggest single contributor to the rise in 2018.

"It has now been 10 years since the G20 committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, yet astonishingly some governments are actually increasing the amount they give to coal power plants," said Ipek Gençsü, research fellow at ODI and lead author of the report.

"Momentum is growing around the world for governments to take urgent action to tackle the climate crisis and ending subsidies to coal would bring benefits to all [including reduced air pollution] and help set a level playing field for clean energy," she said.

Han Chen, energy policy manager at the Natural Resources Defense Council and co-author of the report, said: "Other governments may struggle to take Japan's rhetoric on climate change seriously, as this year's G20 host government continues to pour billions of dollars into propping up coal. If prime minister Abe is serious about dealing with climate change, he should end Japan's government-backed finance for coal."

Green campaigners are planning protests in Japan against the G20's coal subsidies and in nations where coal plants are being funded. China is supporting coal plants in the Philippines, opposed by the Oriang women's movement, which campaigns for gender and social justice.

Flora Santos, the movement's president, said: "We cannot continue to live in peril and in the face of ever-worsening threats to the survival and security of our families. The expansion of the coal industry and projects must stop as soon as possible."

The researchers totalled the financial and tax subsidies given for mining coal and building and maintaining coal-fired power plants, including investments by state-owned companies. They found the average annual amount increased from $17bn in 2014 to $47bn in 2017. In contrast, the subsidies for coal mining halved, from $22bn to $10bn.

"In reality, government support to coal is much larger than our report's numbers show, because many G20 countries still lack transparency on the many ways they subsidise coal," said Ivetta Gerasimchuk, at the International Institute for Sustainable Development and another co-author.

Coal is seen as a sector in terminal decline across the world, from Asia to the US to Europe, and the International Energy Agency reported that total investments in new coal plants have fallen by 75% from 2015 to 2018. The reason state subsidies are bucking this trend may be because governments are choosing to prop up the sector for political reasons, said Gençsü.

"They are just kicking the can down the road," she said. "The money would be much better channelled to managing the [low carbon] transition and setting an end date. Coal use is going to end – it is the trajectory the world is on – but they are really dragging their feet."

About 5% of the subsidies identified in the report went to assisting a transition away from coal, mainly in Germany and the UK. But other programmes have been launched since 2017, including a $15bn fund in China for coal and steel workers, and a €250m scheme for coalminers in Spain, which is not a G20 nation.

The World Coal Association did not respond to a request for comment.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on June 26, 2019, 04:31:50 AM
<_<
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2019, 03:10:15 PM
QuoteSpain, which is not a G20 nation.

This I did not know.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on June 26, 2019, 04:33:38 PM
I'm glad I don't have kids.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on June 27, 2019, 05:54:48 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2019, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: Maladict on June 18, 2019, 12:22:40 PM
:(

https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120

I got a good look at Greenland on our flight back from Europe - there are lots of deep wide trenches running down to the sea formed from glacier flows that used to be there.  It looks like a massive abandoned open pit mining operation.

IIRC the original photo was posted as dramatic because of how early this stage was reached in the year, otherwise this is supposed to happen in the summer.

But it went around the world with the basic attitude of OMG GREENLAND HAS LOST ICE, DOOM IS AT HAND.

My problem with that is that the issue is severe enough without hyperbole, I think arguments for action could be more convincing if at least the pro-action side refused to be sensationalist.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on June 27, 2019, 06:56:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2019, 03:10:15 PM
QuoteSpain, which is not a G20 nation.

This I did not know.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-who-gets-invited-to-the-g20-summit-and-why-33308

QuoteBut Spain is a what is known as a "permanent invitee". What is the difference between a member and a permanent invitee, I hear you cry. No-one knows. Spain always gets to come.

:hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 07:15:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2019, 05:54:48 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2019, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: Maladict on June 18, 2019, 12:22:40 PM
:(

https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120

I got a good look at Greenland on our flight back from Europe - there are lots of deep wide trenches running down to the sea formed from glacier flows that used to be there.  It looks like a massive abandoned open pit mining operation.

IIRC the original photo was posted as dramatic because of how early this stage was reached in the year, otherwise this is supposed to happen in the summer.

But it went around the world with the basic attitude of OMG GREENLAND HAS LOST ICE, DOOM IS AT HAND.

My problem with that is that the issue is severe enough without hyperbole, I think arguments for action could be more convincing if at least the pro-action side refused to be sensationalist.

:huh:

The fact that the North is warming quickly is a very good indication that doom is at hand.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on June 27, 2019, 07:50:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2019, 05:54:48 AM

I think arguments for action could be more convincing if at least the pro-action side refused to be sensationalist.

They've tried that for decades and nobody cared. And it's hard to overstate the problem at this point.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 11:03:48 AM
Quote from: Maladict on June 27, 2019, 07:50:01 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2019, 05:54:48 AM

I think arguments for action could be more convincing if at least the pro-action side refused to be sensationalist.

They've tried that for decades and nobody cared. And its hard to overstate the problem at this point.

Tamas is a good example of what is wrong.  Intellectually he knows that climate change is a thing.  He is just not ready to acknowledge how urgent the problem is.  As was discussed upthread a while ago, the climate change delayers may be more harmful at this point than the deniers.  The deniers look foolish now.  The delayers have a veneer of reasonableness and moderation that too many people will accept and in doing so we are going to go over 1.5.

We see this problem in the Canadian election coming up.  The two main parties give lip service to climate change but the things they are prepared to do about it are not close to what the IPCC says needs to be done.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2019, 12:06:52 PM
Have to agree cc

The delayers are like people that see a tornado coming for their house, and immediately call to cut their homeowner's insurance coverage to save on premiums.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on June 27, 2019, 05:49:59 PM
I think there is a real problem in saying "We're doomed!"  Hyperbole make it easier to dismiss a very serious problem.  I don't think anyone is predicting a runaway greenhouse scenario that would turn the Earth into Venereal wasteland.  Sea levels at the Eemian period are catastrophic enough.


I think we should make the climate deniers put some skin in the game.  If sea levels do rise to Eemian levels then all the displaced persons. have an absolute right to asylum in the US.  The Nation of Bangladesh would be totally lost.  Rising sea levels may not scare American conservatives, but an influx of 150 million brown-skinned Muslims might.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 07:14:30 PM
Sea level rise is the least of our concerns.  Scientists made a tactical error focusing on that early on.  their reason for doing so is it was easily understandable (or so they thought).  The other effects of climate change over 1.5 are pretty severe and likely trigger a feedback  loop that will be difficult to reverse.

QuoteScientists (including the Hothouse Earth authors) believe they are likely to be near 2 degrees C and that the risks increase dramatically above that level of global warming. But we can't rule out the possibility that it is closer at hand. Hence the goal of the Paris Climate agreement to stay well below 2 degrees C and attempt to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedbacks-are-so-bad


Saying that we are not facing disaster if action isn't taken to keep up from going above 1.5 is simply irresponsible.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on June 27, 2019, 07:41:05 PM
Meanwhile Spain burns.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on June 28, 2019, 12:07:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 07:14:30 PM
Sea level rise is the least of our concerns. 

Speak for yourself  :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on June 28, 2019, 12:51:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 07:14:30 PM
Sea level rise is the least of our concerns.  Scientists made a tactical error focusing on that early on.  their reason for doing so is it was easily understandable (or so they thought).  The other effects of climate change over 1.5 are pretty severe and likely trigger a feedback  loop that will be difficult to reverse.

QuoteScientists (including the Hothouse Earth authors) believe they are likely to be near 2 degrees C and that the risks increase dramatically above that level of global warming. But we can't rule out the possibility that it is closer at hand. Hence the goal of the Paris Climate agreement to stay well below 2 degrees C and attempt to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedbacks-are-so-bad (https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedbacks-are-so-bad)


Saying that we are not facing disaster if action isn't taken to keep up from going above 1.5 is simply irresponsible.


I didn't say we aren't facing a disaster.  I object to saying things like "We're doomed".  Just so we are clear here, do you believe the situation described in your article will result in the death of every living creature on this planet?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 08:37:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2019, 12:51:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 07:14:30 PM
Sea level rise is the least of our concerns.  Scientists made a tactical error focusing on that early on.  their reason for doing so is it was easily understandable (or so they thought).  The other effects of climate change over 1.5 are pretty severe and likely trigger a feedback  loop that will be difficult to reverse.

QuoteScientists (including the Hothouse Earth authors) believe they are likely to be near 2 degrees C and that the risks increase dramatically above that level of global warming. But we can't rule out the possibility that it is closer at hand. Hence the goal of the Paris Climate agreement to stay well below 2 degrees C and attempt to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedbacks-are-so-bad (https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedbacks-are-so-bad)


Saying that we are not facing disaster if action isn't taken to keep up from going above 1.5 is simply irresponsible.


I didn't say we aren't facing a disaster.  I object to saying things like "We're doomed".  Just so we are clear here, do you believe the situation described in your article will result in the death of every living creature on this planet?


Every living creature?  No.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on June 28, 2019, 11:01:42 AM
https://showyourstripes.info/

Gives stripe diagrams for countries/locations, showing if the year average was above or below the 1971-2000 average.

For Vienna, 1775 - 2018:

(https://showyourstripes.info/stripes/EUROPE-Austria-Vienna-1775-2018-ZA.png)

Globe 1850 - 2018:

(https://showyourstripes.info/stripes/GLOBE---1850-2018-MO.png)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 07:15:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2019, 05:54:48 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2019, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: Maladict on June 18, 2019, 12:22:40 PM
:(

https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120

I got a good look at Greenland on our flight back from Europe - there are lots of deep wide trenches running down to the sea formed from glacier flows that used to be there.  It looks like a massive abandoned open pit mining operation.

IIRC the original photo was posted as dramatic because of how early this stage was reached in the year, otherwise this is supposed to happen in the summer.

But it went around the world with the basic attitude of OMG GREENLAND HAS LOST ICE, DOOM IS AT HAND.

My problem with that is that the issue is severe enough without hyperbole, I think arguments for action could be more convincing if at least the pro-action side refused to be sensationalist.

:huh:

The fact that the North is warming quickly is a very good indication that doom is at hand.
no, it is not.  It is an indication that Earth's temperature are rising quickly, faster than we might have expected, but it is not a very good indication that "doom" is at hand.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 02:07:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 01:57:05 PM

no, it is not.  It is an indication that Earth's temperature are rising quickly, faster than we might have expected, but it is not a very good indication that "doom" is at hand.

You suggested earlier that scientist were overly optimistic about the amount of time we have before going over 1.5 - why the about face now?  Or is it you think its no biggie?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 02:07:27 PM
@Syt, I was wondering why there was so much blue... Kinda forgot to scroll... doh!   :P :blush:

looking at it, Costa Rica seems not so bad, surprisingly.  Might be because it's already hellish and can't get worst, or the Pacific coast is doing wonder at these lattitudes.

On the other hand, with ice melting&all, maybe Greenland will become the new hotspot where tourists go during summer :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 02:09:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 02:07:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 01:57:05 PM

no, it is not.  It is an indication that Earth's temperature are rising quickly, faster than we might have expected, but it is not a very good indication that "doom" is at hand.

You suggested earlier that scientist were overly optimistic about the amount of time we have before going over 1.5 - why the about face now?  Or is it you think its no biggie?
"Doom" is not science.  Doom is about having a planet unlivable for humans, or most of humanity anyway.  That is not the case, even with global warming.

It is a disaster, it will cost us much, much, much more money that it would to reduce our CO2 emissions right now, but it is not "doom", as in extinction level event for humanity, or most of the world's fauna (well, it is happenning, but it is not solely due, or even mostly due to global warming, that is a seperate problem we must also tackle).

Basically: can we adapt to global warming?  Yes.  Should we invest energy into adaptation rather than prevention?  No, certainly not.  Should we ignore adaptation or mitigation?  At this point, no.  Too many stupid people.


Also, we could do more, but never as much as the "Greens" want to.  Remember: the European greens managed to have Germany shut down its nuclear power plants and replace them with coal plants.  How is that helping us?

There are ways to be realistic about it, and Tamas is right, talking of impending "DOOM" is not helping.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 02:16:04 PM
that is double talk Viper.  We are already experiencing species extinction at alarming rates and we have not even got to 1.5 yet.  Both on land and in the oceans. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2019, 03:18:07 PM
Sounds pretty serious. Maybe we should stop flying planes halfway around the world for fun.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on June 28, 2019, 03:23:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 08:37:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2019, 12:51:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2019, 07:14:30 PM
Sea level rise is the least of our concerns.  Scientists made a tactical error focusing on that early on.  their reason for doing so is it was easily understandable (or so they thought).  The other effects of climate change over 1.5 are pretty severe and likely trigger a feedback  loop that will be difficult to reverse.

QuoteScientists (including the Hothouse Earth authors) believe they are likely to be near 2 degrees C and that the risks increase dramatically above that level of global warming. But we can't rule out the possibility that it is closer at hand. Hence the goal of the Paris Climate agreement to stay well below 2 degrees C and attempt to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedbacks-are-so-bad (https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/why-positive-climate-feedbacks-are-so-bad)


Saying that we are not facing disaster if action isn't taken to keep up from going above 1.5 is simply irresponsible.


I didn't say we aren't facing a disaster.  I object to saying things like "We're doomed".  Just so we are clear here, do you believe the situation described in your article will result in the death of every living creature on this planet?


Every living creature?  No.


Okay, that's a start.  Will every living human being will be extinct?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on June 28, 2019, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 02:16:04 PM
that is double talk Viper.  We are already experiencing species extinction at alarming rates and we have not even got to 1.5 yet.  Both on land and in the oceans.


We've been experiencing species extinction at alarming rates for the last 10,000 years.  The question is what sort of extinction level crisis are we going to experiencing.  Is it a E-O level extinction or P-T level extinction?

The rapid decline in insect levels over the last 20 years may be a sign of Permian-Triassic event.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on June 28, 2019, 03:45:18 PM
We call it Voight-Kampff for short.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 28, 2019, 02:16:04 PM
that is double talk Viper.  We are already experiencing species extinction at alarming rates and we have not even got to 1.5 yet.  Both on land and in the oceans. 
but that is not solely due to global warming.  Deforestation increases global warming, and this is the most threatening aspect to many life forms, but it is not global warming causing the death of so many species.  Acidification of the oceans is caused mainly by global warming though, but global warming does not cause whale hunting, or whales colliding with ships.  Plastic in the oceans is not a cause of global warming, nor is any kind of pollution rejected in the atmosphere and the oceans.  The use of pesticides has nothing to do with global warming, but it is creating problems for insect populations and the birds who feed on them.  Modern agricultural practices that leaves fewer parts of fields left "vacant" for months also decreases the number of birds that used to inhabit these fields.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on June 28, 2019, 04:20:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 28, 2019, 03:18:07 PM
Sounds pretty serious. Maybe we should stop flying planes halfway around the world for fun.

:hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on June 29, 2019, 01:02:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
  Modern agricultural practices that leaves fewer parts of fields left "vacant" for months also decreases the number of birds that used to inhabit these fields.




Did Quebec just discover crop-rotation?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on June 29, 2019, 10:09:25 PM
Europe's ten largest carbon emitters:

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16AAE/production/_106264829_carbonemissions-nc.png)

Nine lignite power stations and an Irish airline.  :hmm:

Article here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47783992 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47783992)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 02:19:12 AM
If only the plebs haven't started flying to places and continued to stay put in their hovels. :(
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 02:20:32 AM
Also that chart shows you then, how fucking stupid most greens are. They had ALL the German nuclear plants closed because of a TSUNAMI IN JAPAN. Now they burn coal instead.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on June 30, 2019, 04:51:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2019, 01:02:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
  Modern agricultural practices that leaves fewer parts of fields left "vacant" for months also decreases the number of birds that used to inhabit these fields.

Did Quebec just discover crop-rotation?
there's less crop rotation than before.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on June 30, 2019, 05:35:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 02:20:32 AM
Also that chart shows you then, how fucking stupid most greens are. They had ALL the German nuclear plants closed because of a TSUNAMI IN JAPAN. Now they burn coal instead.

I believe that the German Greens have been in favor of quitting both nuclear and coal power. I recall that they positioned themselves that quitting nuclear energy mustn't lead to increased energy production from coal, and that both should be phased out a.s.a.p. for renewables.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 07:43:24 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2019, 05:35:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 02:20:32 AM
Also that chart shows you then, how fucking stupid most greens are. They had ALL the German nuclear plants closed because of a TSUNAMI IN JAPAN. Now they burn coal instead.

I believe that the German Greens have been in favor of quitting both nuclear and coal power. I recall that they positioned themselves that quitting nuclear energy mustn't lead to increased energy production from coal, and that both should be phased out a.s.a.p. for renewables.

Fine, but surely in the interim period leading up to a giant heavily industrialised, advanced country being run 100% from windmills and solar panels, nuclear is the answer, not bloody coal.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on June 30, 2019, 11:04:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 07:43:24 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2019, 05:35:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 02:20:32 AM
Also that chart shows you then, how fucking stupid most greens are. They had ALL the German nuclear plants closed because of a TSUNAMI IN JAPAN. Now they burn coal instead.

I believe that the German Greens have been in favor of quitting both nuclear and coal power. I recall that they positioned themselves that quitting nuclear energy mustn't lead to increased energy production from coal, and that both should be phased out a.s.a.p. for renewables.

Fine, but surely in the interim period leading up to a giant heavily industrialised, advanced country being run 100% from windmills and solar panels, nuclear is the answer, not bloody coal.

No that would be a sensible position.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on June 30, 2019, 11:43:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 30, 2019, 11:04:08 AM
No that would be a sensible position.

The extremists among the Greens don't want "a sensible position."  They want you to panic, and have said so using just those words.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on June 30, 2019, 02:37:30 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2019, 05:35:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 02:20:32 AM
Also that chart shows you then, how fucking stupid most greens are. They had ALL the German nuclear plants closed because of a TSUNAMI IN JAPAN. Now they burn coal instead.

I believe that the German Greens have been in favor of quitting both nuclear and coal power. I recall that they positioned themselves that quitting nuclear energy mustn't lead to increased energy production from coal, and that both should be phased out a.s.a.p. for renewables.

Surely in the current situation phasing out coal should be a much higher priority than phasing out zero emissions energy sources. What kind of idiotic positioning are they taking? Do they want to help the environment or play a central role in environmental destruction? Because that position makes it hard to tell.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Josquius on June 30, 2019, 03:06:29 PM
Its sad, but the Greens were coming around to nuclear power until Fukushima. When the anti-science kicked in again
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on June 30, 2019, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2019, 03:06:29 PM
Its sad, but the Greens were coming around to nuclear power until Fukushima. When the anti-science kicked in again


That's not really anti-science just anti-practical.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on June 30, 2019, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2019, 02:37:30 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2019, 05:35:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2019, 02:20:32 AM
Also that chart shows you then, how fucking stupid most greens are. They had ALL the German nuclear plants closed because of a TSUNAMI IN JAPAN. Now they burn coal instead.

I believe that the German Greens have been in favor of quitting both nuclear and coal power. I recall that they positioned themselves that quitting nuclear energy mustn't lead to increased energy production from coal, and that both should be phased out a.s.a.p. for renewables.

Surely in the current situation phasing out coal should be a much higher priority than phasing out zero emissions energy sources. What kind of idiotic positioning are they taking? Do they want to help the environment or play a central role in environmental destruction? Because that position makes it hard to tell.

The current situation is the same as it's been for decades, and all this time they've been consistent.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on June 30, 2019, 04:38:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2019, 03:06:29 PM
Its sad, but the Greens were coming around to nuclear power until Fukushima. When the anti-science kicked in again

Not in Germany. Opposition to nuclear has always been a core tenet. (Atomkraft? Nein danke)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on June 30, 2019, 07:37:43 PM
Greens and Environmentalists have always been shitty allies for trying to reduce emissions. It is really frustrating.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on June 30, 2019, 08:42:07 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 30, 2019, 04:38:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2019, 03:06:29 PM
Its sad, but the Greens were coming around to nuclear power until Fukushima. When the anti-science kicked in again

Not in Germany. Opposition to nuclear has always been a core tenet. (Atomkraft? Nein danke)

Exactly.  Better to tolerate global warming than nuclear power.  Gotta shut down those nukes even if it kills us.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on July 01, 2019, 09:25:57 PM
50 years from now, when humanity deals with the carnage from global warming, one of the questions that will be asked is why didn't our forefathers fix this when they could.  I wonder what the lessons learned will be in future generations' minds.  I don't think the lesson learned will be let's maintain the status quo.  It will be ugly.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 01, 2019, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2019, 09:25:57 PM
50 years from now, when humanity deals with the carnage from global warming, one of the questions that will be asked is why didn't our forefathers fix this when they could.  I wonder what the lessons learned will be in future generations' minds.  I don't think the lesson learned will be let's maintain the status quo.  It will be ugly.

Yet you cling to that "lesson" like a life preserver.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Monoriu on July 01, 2019, 11:17:07 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 01, 2019, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2019, 09:25:57 PM
50 years from now, when humanity deals with the carnage from global warming, one of the questions that will be asked is why didn't our forefathers fix this when they could.  I wonder what the lessons learned will be in future generations' minds.  I don't think the lesson learned will be let's maintain the status quo.  It will be ugly.

Yet you cling to that "lesson" like a life preserver.  :hmm:

I am but a bystander.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: mongers on July 30, 2019, 10:56:47 PM
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/37A1/production/_108114241_top10-nc.png)

QuoteClimate change: UK's 10 warmest years all occurred since 2002
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

The top 10 warmest years on record in the UK have all occurred since 2002, a new analysis from the Met Office says.
Its State of the UK Climate report shows that 2014 remains the warmest year in a temperature sequence now dating back to 1884.
Despite last summer's blistering heat, 2018 only places as the seventh warmest year on record - as the statistic is based on temperatures all year round.
When it comes to the coldest years, the most recent in the top 10 was in 1963.
The patterns of warm and cold years in Britain are a clear signal of climate change, say scientists.

.....

Full article here, well worth reading:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49167797 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49167797)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on July 31, 2019, 10:26:05 AM
It's kind of amazing that one of the fallouts of the Rise of Trump is that it is now cool to pretend that global warming is a hoax again.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on August 01, 2019, 11:45:09 AM
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-865803/

QuoteGreenland Is Melting Away Before Our Eyes

Amid an ongoing heat wave, new data show the Greenland ice sheet is in the middle of its biggest melt season in recorded history. It's the latest worrying signal climate change is accelerating far beyond the worst fears of even climate scientists.

The record-setting heat wave that sweltered northern Europe last week has moved north over the critically vulnerable Greenland ice sheet, triggering temperatures this week that are as much as 25 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal.

Weather models indicate Tuesday's temperature may have surpassed 75 degrees Fahrenheit in some regions of Greenland, and a weather balloon launched near the capital Nuuk measured all-time record warmth just above the surface. That heat wave is still intensifying, and is expected to peak on Thursday with the biggest single-day melt ever recorded in Greenland. On August 1 alone, more than 12 billion tons of water will permanently melt away from the ice sheet and find its way down to the ocean, irreversibly raising sea levels globally.

A tweet from the Danish Meteorological Institute, the official weather service of Greenland, said "almost all the ice sheet, including Summit" measurably melted on Tuesday. According to a preliminary estimate, that melt covered 87 percent of the ice sheet's surface, which would be the second-biggest melt day in Greenland's recorded history. Separate weather monitoring equipment at Summit Camp at the top of the 10,000-foot-thick Greenland ice sheet confirmed the temperature briefly reached the melting point.

Downhill, meltwater was seen dramatically streaming off the edge of the ice sheet in massive waterfalls. Climate scientist Irina Overeem, who placed a meltwater monitoring station in western Greenland eight years ago, recorded a dramatic video of a rushing torrent of water. In a comment posted on Twitter, she said "I have my fingers crossed for it not being washed away." In an email to Rolling Stone, Overeem described the nature of life in Greenland these days: After recording that video, she spotted a warning of the major glacial water runoff on the announcement board of the main supermarket in the capital city. A similar glacial flood in 2012 was so intense it washed away bridge.

Ice core records show melt days like these have happened only a handful of times in the past 1,000 years. But, with the advent of human-caused climate change, the chances of these full-scale melt events happening are sharply increasing.

Even just a few decades ago, an event like this would have been unthinkable. Now, island-wide meltdown days like this are becoming increasingly routine. The ongoing melt event is the second time in seven years that virtually the entire ice sheet simultaneously experienced at least some melt. The last was in July 2012, where 97 percent of the ice sheet simultaneously melted.

In the 1980s, wintertime snows in Greenland roughly balanced summertime melt from the ice sheet, and the conventional wisdom among scientists was that it might take thousands of years for the ice to completely melt under pressure from global warming.

That's all changed now.

With a decade or two of hindsight, scientists now believe Greenland passed an important tipping point around 2003, and since then its melt rate has more than quadrupled.

This week alone, Greenland will lose about 50 billion tons of ice, enough for a permanent rise in global sea levels by about 0.1mm. So far in July, the Greenland ice sheet has lost 160 billion tons of ice — enough to cover Florida in about six feet of water. According to IPCC estimates, that's roughly the level of melt a typical summer will have in 2050 under the worst-case warming scenario if we don't take meaningful action to address climate change. Under that same scenario, this week's brutal, deadly heat wave would be normal weather in the 2070s.

Xavier Fettweis, a polar scientist at the University of Liège in Belgium who tracks meltwater on the Greenland ice sheet, told Rolling Stone in an email that the recent acceleration of these melt events means the IPCC scenarios "clearly underestimate what we currently observe over the Greenland ice sheet" and should revisit their projections for the future.

"This melt event is a good alarm signal that we urgently need change our way of
living," said Fettweis. "It is more and more likely that the IPCC projections are too optimistic in the Arctic." Altogether, the Greenland ice sheet contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by about 24 feet.

This isn't happening in isolation: This summer has been horrific all across the Arctic.

Unusual wildfires across Siberia, Scandinavia, Alaska, and Greenland have been raging all summer, and by one estimate released about 50 million tons of carbon dioxide in the month of June alone — equivalent to the annual emissions of Sweden. In Switzerland, some glaciers melted so rapidly during last week's heatwave that they sent swirling mudflows racing downhill. In the Arctic Ocean, sea ice is at a record-low extent as the melt season continues to lengthen. In Alaska, ecosystems are rapidly changing, especially in the Bering Sea region where this year's ice-free season began in February.

As daunting as this is, the latest science on Greenland also points to a window of hope: Greenland's meltdown is not yet irreversible. That self-sustaining process of melt-begetting-more-melt would kick in at around 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius of global warming. That means whether or not Greenland's ice sheet melts completely is almost entirely in human control: A full-scale mobilization ­— including rapidly transforming the basis of the global economy toward a future where fossil fuels are no longer used — would probably be enough to keep most of the remaining ice frozen, where it belongs.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on August 01, 2019, 12:21:44 PM
QuoteSo far in July, the Greenland ice sheet has lost 160 billion tons of ice — enough to cover Florida in about six feet of water.

This should be very easy to check.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on August 12, 2019, 05:39:13 PM
https://www.livescience.com/66120-amazon-rainforest-deforestation-bolsonaro.html

deforestation up 278% since last year, (June to June) in Amazonia.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on August 15, 2019, 03:39:32 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/14/glaciers-iceland-country-loss-plaque-climate-crisis

QuoteThe glaciers of Iceland seemed eternal. Now a country mourns their loss

My grandparents mapped these giants of the landscape. A plaque will mark the spot where the first was lost to the climate crisis

How do you write a eulogy for a glacier? Think about it. How would you go about that, having grown up with glaciers as a geological given, a symbol of eternity? How do you say goodbye?

When academics at Rice University in Houston, Texas called and asked me to write the text for a plaque to commemorate the first dead glacier in Iceland, I found myself confronted with this problem. I was reminded of one of my favourite passages from Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five:

"You know what I say to people when I hear they're writing anti-war books?"

"No. What do you say, Harrison Starr?"

"I say, 'Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?'"

What he meant, of course, was that there would always be wars, that they were as easy to stop as glaciers. I believe that too.

Well guess what, Harrison Starr. We humans have done for the glaciers. Almost every glacier on the planet has stopped growing and most are shrinking at an alarming rate. Ok Glacier is the first in Iceland to be formally declared dead ice. In the Himalayas, Greenland, the Alps and Iceland, the glaciers are all melting. In the spirit of Vonnegut, you could say that the Texan professors had asked me to write a pro-glacier text.

The name of our dead glacier has multiple layers. Ok in Icelandic is the equivalent of "yoke" in English, the pole traditionally used to carry buckets of water. Yoke can also mean burden, something that weighs you down. Ok carried water in the form of ice. And now that water has become ocean, the slowly rising burden of future generations.

According to current trends, all glaciers in Iceland will disappear in the next 200 years. So the plaque for Ok could be the first of 400 in Iceland alone. The glacier Snæfellsjökull, where Jules Verne began his Journey to the Centre of the Earth, is likely to be gone in the next 30 years and that will be a significant loss. This glacier is for Iceland what Fuji is for Japan.

The combined disappearance of all the glaciers of Iceland will add about 1cm to global sea levels. It might not seem much, but when that process is replicated worldwide, the floods will affect hundreds of millions of people. The most worrying prospect of all is the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. They are the yoke that carries the water for one billion people.

My family has a personal connection to glaciers. My grandparents were founding partners of the Icelandic glacial research society. When my grandfather said he wanted to take my grandmother with him on a three-week research trip in 1955, some men asked him if he was crazy. Take a woman on a glacier trip? My grandparents and the research team mapped and measured the glacier and were stuck in a small tent for three days. "Weren't you cold?" I asked them. "Cold? We were just married," they replied. The part of the glacier where they pitched their tent had no name at the time. Today it is called Brúðarbunga, "The Bride's Bulge".

For now, about 10% of Iceland is covered with glaciers. The thickest packs are in Vatnajökull – up to 1,000 metres deep. Imagine stacking three Empire State Buildings on top of each other – then stretch that bulk over the horizon. To think that something so huge is actually fragile is beyond comprehension. When my grandparents measured the glaciers, they were the eternal white giants. But calculate how long they will last in this warming climate and the outlook is bleak, to say the least. Most of them will only last the lifespan of someone born today who lives to a good age. We understand that glaciers grow and recede, but this is a collapse, an explosion in slow motion.

It's not that we aren't used to changes in nature: we have mountains in Iceland younger than myself, huge craters that are younger than the Brooklyn Bridge. We have volcanic eruptions so violent and powerful that they seem to render all human action puny by comparison.

What do we humans matter, people ask, when a volcano might blow and spew out millions of tonnes of CO2? In 2010 the famous Eyjafjallajökull eruption closed down all airports in Europe. But its CO2 emissions were only about 150,000 tonnes a day, compared with human activity which is responsible for almost 100m tonnes a day. The impact of humans on a daily basis is equal to more than 600 of these volcanoes. Imagine all these eruptions on every continent, all day, all night, all year round and tell yourself that they have no effect on the climate.

The natural world is being transformed at an alarming rate. The frozen graves of mammoths in Siberia are thawing and the rate of ocean acidification is reaching levels not seen for 50m years. A dying glacier is not a dramatic event. The drama of a melting glacier is no more dramatic than springtime: one day there is snow and the next day it is gone. We are living through the Great Thaw, the Big Melt. We have to remind ourselves that this is not normal. That it is not OK to write a memorial to a glacier named Ok. We remind ourselves with a plaque that we resemble the frogs which are slowly boiled alive in the fable. Fellow frogs, we are cooking: what are we going to do about it?

One of the fundamental flaws of our civilisation is its inability to think outside the present. When a scientist talks about 2100, we feel the date has nothing to do with us. So sometimes when I talk to university students I ask them to do a simple calculation, a thought experiment. I tell them, if you were born in the year 2000 you might become a healthy 90-year-old. At that time you might have a favourite 20-year-old in your life. A grandchild perhaps, someone you have known and loved for 20 years. When will that person be a healthy 90-year-old, maybe talking about you as the greatest influence in their lives?

The students do the maths and come up with a year like 2160. That is not an abstract calculation. That is the intimate time of someone in high school or at university today. This is time whose meaning they can touch with their bare hands. If we can connect deeply to a date like this, what do we think of scientists warning of catastrophe in 2070? Or 2090? How can that be beyond our imagination, as if part of some sci-fi future?

So on the copper plate to commemorate Ok glacier, we have written to these loved ones of the future: "We know what is happening and what needs to be done. Only you know if we did it."


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fargumentua.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F___________1_24.jpg&hash=ee3d8f3786366ce61c2a12d0263b7761cceaa0ac)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on August 15, 2019, 04:29:25 AM
From a purely irresponsible and selfish view, why should the inhabitants of Greenland and Iceland worry about the mildening of their islands' climate? Honest question.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on August 15, 2019, 05:53:02 AM
From a selfish reason? Tourism I guess.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on August 15, 2019, 06:50:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2019, 04:29:25 AM
From a purely irresponsible and selfish view, why should the inhabitants of Greenland and Iceland worry about the mildening of their islands' climate? Honest question.

Maybe they like it the way it is?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on August 15, 2019, 06:52:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2019, 04:29:25 AM
From a purely irresponsible and selfish view, why should the inhabitants of Greenland and Iceland worry about the mildening of their islands' climate? Honest question.

In my grandfather's childhood the local bay outside Reykjavík sometimes froze during winter. The 30's, 40's and 50's in Iceland were warm comparatively speaking and then there was another 30 year cold snap followed by a warming that's still ongoing. The glaciers in Iceland have been on an almost 2 century shrinking trend though since the Little Ice Age ended.

Current temperatures are approaching what they were around the time Iceland was first settled.

But yeah, the absolute worst case 4 degree warming scenario this century would take Iceland to about what a miserably cold Swedish summer is today. Canada and Iceland might actually become semi-inhabitable. ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on August 15, 2019, 06:55:57 AM
What about the Icelandic fishing industry?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on August 15, 2019, 07:07:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 15, 2019, 06:55:57 AM
What about the Icelandic fishing industry?

No idea, some species will become more or less abundant. Atlantic mackerel for instance is showing up in huge shoals around Iceland, enough to become a valuable addition to the usual species.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on August 15, 2019, 07:33:46 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2019, 04:29:25 AM
From a purely irresponsible and selfish view, why should the inhabitants of Greenland and Iceland worry about the mildening of their islands' climate? Honest question.

Well, a few reasons.

First, global warming is a bit of a misnomer - while the temperature is overall increasing, what it leads to is increasing weather instability. Bad weather events have (and will) increase in frequency and severity.

Second, global warming (and global ice melting) will likely lead to a rise in sea levels - not good when many of your settlements are on the sea shores.

So overall, it isn't the warming that is the problem, but what it brings with it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on August 15, 2019, 07:48:54 AM
Yeah, we evolved as a species in an icehouse epoch and the current civilization is built around that. It would be a major struggle to adapt if we went back to the Pliocene climate.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on August 15, 2019, 09:35:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2019, 07:33:46 AM

So overall, it isn't the warming that is the problem, but what it brings with it.

I cannot help but remember the last time the world was warmer Texas was under a shallow sea.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on August 15, 2019, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2019, 09:35:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2019, 07:33:46 AM

So overall, it isn't the warming that is the problem, but what it brings with it.

I cannot help but remember the last time the world was warmer Texas was under a shallow sea.

So what you are saying is that climate change has an upside?

[  ;) ]
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on August 16, 2019, 04:39:50 AM
With Florida and Texas underwater there is no way that Trump will get his 5th term  :cool:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on August 16, 2019, 04:45:45 AM
The hamberders will do him in well before that.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on August 16, 2019, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2019, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 15, 2019, 09:35:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2019, 07:33:46 AM

So overall, it isn't the warming that is the problem, but what it brings with it.

I cannot help but remember the last time the world was warmer Texas was under a shallow sea.

So what you are saying is that climate change has an upside?

[  ;) ]

Probably by the end of the 21st century there will be a massive carbon recapture infrastructure in place and that coupled with going full Brain, with 4th generation nuclear power plants online we'll be fine. At worst we're back to the Pliocene for a few thousand years. If the warming continues and the Earth goes to a Miocene climate, Europe will end up looking a lot like the Malaysian archipelago does today and Greenland will boast lush rainforests.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on August 16, 2019, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 16, 2019, 10:15:05 AM
Probably by the end of the 21st century there will be a massive carbon recapture infrastructure in place and that coupled with going full Brain, with 4th generation nuclear power plants online we'll be fine.

That is what I am hoping. I am really looking forward to seeing if we get results from the ITER project in 2025-2035.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 16, 2019, 10:36:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2019, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 16, 2019, 10:15:05 AM
Probably by the end of the 21st century there will be a massive carbon recapture infrastructure in place and that coupled with going full Brain, with 4th generation nuclear power plants online we'll be fine.

That is what I am hoping. I am really looking forward to seeing if we get results from the ITER project in 2025-2035.

I also hope it works, but practical application will still be a long way off even if it is completely successful.  Keep in mind that they are just proving that creating excess heat energy is possible but this design is not going to produce sufficient power for net electrical production. 

Also keep in mind that without immediate steps we are going to reach 1.5 degrees of warming by 2034.  Likely earlier as the projection is refined with more recent data showing the arctic is warming faster than anticipated (and the resulting release of methane which will speed things up).

btw, here is a interesting site that has a countdown clock updated with current data regarding emissions.  You can look at the calculations for 1.5 and 2 degrees.

https://www.inverse.com/article/51531-how-long-till-global-temperatures-reach-1-5-degrees-celsius

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 08:27:31 AM
The salmon run this year was anticipated to be 5 million that has now been downgraded to 600,000

One of the main reasons identified in a report which made the reduced estimate is the significant warming of the ocean.

"An unprecedented heatwave, nicknamed "The Blob", dominated the Northeast Pacific Ocean from 2013-2016 (Figure 2). This ocean warming contributed to physical and biological changes, some of which continue to persist. Sea-surface-temperatures (SST) during the heatwave were 3-5°C above seasonal averages, extending down to depths of 100 m (Bond et al. 2015, Ross and Robert 2018, Smale et al. 2019). Climate modeling has shown that this heatwave can best be explained by human- caused warming (Walsh et al. 2018)."


Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on August 23, 2019, 09:54:37 AM
From Bolsonaro's foreign policy advisor: « He added: "If you are wondering who is going to save the Amazon, here's a very straightforward answer for you: It's not the empty, hysterical and misleading rhetoric of the mainstream media, transnational bureaucrats and NGOs."

It's the same rhetoric everywhere now.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HVC on August 23, 2019, 09:59:13 AM
So we have a Brazilian trump now. Yay
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 08:27:31 AM
The salmon run this year was anticipated to be 5 million that has now been downgraded to 600,000

One of the main reasons identified in a report which made the reduced estimate is the significant warming of the ocean.

"An unprecedented heatwave, nicknamed "The Blob", dominated the Northeast Pacific Ocean from 2013-2016 (Figure 2). This ocean warming contributed to physical and biological changes, some of which continue to persist. Sea-surface-temperatures (SST) during the heatwave were 3-5°C above seasonal averages, extending down to depths of 100 m (Bond et al. 2015, Ross and Robert 2018, Smale et al. 2019). Climate modeling has shown that this heatwave can best be explained by human- caused warming (Walsh et al. 2018)."




Source?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 12:23:48 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2019, 09:54:37 AM
From Bolsonaro's foreign policy advisor: « He added: "If you are wondering who is going to save the Amazon, here's a very straightforward answer for you: It's not the empty, hysterical and misleading rhetoric of the mainstream media, transnational bureaucrats and NGOs."

It's the same rhetoric everywhere now.

It isn't surprising that there is a pretty large chunk of the people in power and with wealth whose basic attitude towards climate change and human caused climate destruction is "I don't fucking care because I got mine".

What is really distressing is that those people have largely managed to throw this fig leaf of deniability over themselves, and then get a huge number of other people to support them. It's kind of baffling to me.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on August 23, 2019, 12:25:20 PM
Well, most people are stupid. I'm pretty sure we're doomed.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 12:36:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 08:27:31 AM
The salmon run this year was anticipated to be 5 million that has now been downgraded to 600,000

One of the main reasons identified in a report which made the reduced estimate is the significant warming of the ocean.

"An unprecedented heatwave, nicknamed "The Blob", dominated the Northeast Pacific Ocean from 2013-2016 (Figure 2). This ocean warming contributed to physical and biological changes, some of which continue to persist. Sea-surface-temperatures (SST) during the heatwave were 3-5°C above seasonal averages, extending down to depths of 100 m (Bond et al. 2015, Ross and Robert 2018, Smale et al. 2019). Climate modeling has shown that this heatwave can best be explained by human- caused warming (Walsh et al. 2018)."




Source?

https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40807071.pdf
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 12:36:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 08:27:31 AM
The salmon run this year was anticipated to be 5 million that has now been downgraded to 600,000

One of the main reasons identified in a report which made the reduced estimate is the significant warming of the ocean.

"An unprecedented heatwave, nicknamed "The Blob", dominated the Northeast Pacific Ocean from 2013-2016 (Figure 2). This ocean warming contributed to physical and biological changes, some of which continue to persist. Sea-surface-temperatures (SST) during the heatwave were 3-5°C above seasonal averages, extending down to depths of 100 m (Bond et al. 2015, Ross and Robert 2018, Smale et al. 2019). Climate modeling has shown that this heatwave can best be explained by human- caused warming (Walsh et al. 2018)."




Source?

https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40807071.pdf

Thanks.

We need more of this....I think.

More concrete examples of actual bad outcomes.

Of course, this is a trailing indicator, which isn't ideal when it comes to a problem that has to do with, oh I don't know, massive damage to the environment.

But still, some actual measureable and tangible fucked up eco systems.

Or hell, who am I kidding? If you can convince yourself that the entire planetary climate science establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake climate change, you can convince yourself that a 90% decline in salmon is either a lie, or due to something beyond our control anyway.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Habbaku on August 23, 2019, 01:49:02 PM
Probably too many bears. We need anti-bear squads.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: frunk on August 23, 2019, 01:49:39 PM
There was report I heard about salmon in a river in Alaska that were showing up dead with no obvious signs of injury or disease.  The best guess is that it might be temperature related.  One of the fisherman was remarkably unconcerned, saying something to the effect that Salmon are hardy and that they'll be fine.  The fact that they are hardy and still dying is why you should be worried. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on August 23, 2019, 05:07:53 PM
(https://scontent.fymq2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/69108184_2336791383072629_1474500562350243840_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnvk_dSxTpqhv1KeabiEUpwe-xf-1-tRs77B2GWTN-4NZCWHGE8qfmLvslnUczJVeA&_nc_ht=scontent.fymq2-1.fna&oh=c332e32dc15499ea1e77e2c49f9a125a&oe=5DCFD4A7)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on August 23, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 01:28:09 PM
Or hell, who am I kidding? If you can convince yourself that the entire planetary climate science establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake climate change, you can convince yourself that a 90% decline in salmon is either a lie, or due to something beyond our control anyway.

Precisely.

The crisis of evidence is not about the lack of it. It's a crisis of meaning and trust. What does the evidence mean, and who gets to ascribe that meaning. As far as I can tell, you can't fight that with more evidence. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on August 23, 2019, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 01:28:09 PM
Or hell, who am I kidding? If you can convince yourself that the entire planetary climate science establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake climate change, you can convince yourself that a 90% decline in salmon is either a lie, or due to something beyond our control anyway.

Precisely.

The crisis of evidence is not about the lack of it. It's a crisis of meaning and trust. What does the evidence mean, and who gets to ascribe that meaning. As far as I can tell, you can't fight that with more evidence.

I'm gonna quote you in my government class this fall.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PDH on August 23, 2019, 06:27:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2019, 05:38:21 PM
I'm gonna quote you in my government class this fall.

When you get quoted by someone who witnessed the collapse of the Bronze Age Civilizations, you have made it
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Razgovory on August 23, 2019, 06:57:26 PM
Serious question:  Why were we able to address ozone depletion in the 1980's, but not climate change now?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2019, 07:10:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2019, 06:57:26 PM
Serious question:  Why were we able to address ozone depletion in the 1980's, but not climate change now?

Because the technology already existed and the cost was not prohibitive.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on August 23, 2019, 07:35:36 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 23, 2019, 06:27:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2019, 05:38:21 PM
I'm gonna quote you in my government class this fall.

When you get quoted by someone who witnessed the collapse of the Bronze Age Civilizations, you have made it

I was napping that afternoon and missed it. :cry:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on August 23, 2019, 07:55:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2019, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 01:28:09 PM
Or hell, who am I kidding? If you can convince yourself that the entire planetary climate science establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake climate change, you can convince yourself that a 90% decline in salmon is either a lie, or due to something beyond our control anyway.

Precisely.

The crisis of evidence is not about the lack of it. It's a crisis of meaning and trust. What does the evidence mean, and who gets to ascribe that meaning. As far as I can tell, you can't fight that with more evidence.

I'm gonna quote you in my government class this fall.

What is the proper citation for a forums post?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: frunk on August 23, 2019, 08:03:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2019, 07:10:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2019, 06:57:26 PM
Serious question:  Why were we able to address ozone depletion in the 1980's, but not climate change now?

Because the technology already existed and the cost was not prohibitive.

Partially true.  The replacements for CFCs didn't exist during the first calls for bans in the late 70s.  As late as the 90s there were still companies claiming they didn't have suitable alternatives.

Cost is a better argument, although even there we see ass backwards stuff like subsidizing coal.  We aren't trying nearly as hard as we could even without raising economic costs.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on August 23, 2019, 09:35:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2019, 06:57:26 PM
Serious question:  Why were we able to address ozone depletion in the 1980's, but not climate change now?
Because it was a cause tackled by right-wingers.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on August 23, 2019, 11:23:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2019, 09:35:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2019, 06:57:26 PM
Serious question:  Why were we able to address ozone depletion in the 1980's, but not climate change now?
Because it was a cause tackled by right-wingers.

GHW Bush did a good job. That was back when people generally agreed on the facts, they just disagreed on the solutions.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on August 24, 2019, 12:13:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 23, 2019, 11:23:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2019, 09:35:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 23, 2019, 06:57:26 PM
Serious question:  Why were we able to address ozone depletion in the 1980's, but not climate change now?
Because it was a cause tackled by right-wingers.

GHW Bush did a good job.
... And Brian Mulroney ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Savonarola on August 24, 2019, 08:33:15 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 23, 2019, 07:55:58 PM
What is the proper citation for a forums post?

Here you go. (https://style.mla.org/comment-in-online-forum/)

While it may sound silly; I've seen online forums quoted in an article in the Florida State Historic Journal.  (It was a sociological article about the Hispanic ghettos around Orlando; not a discussion of the Civil War or anything like that.)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on August 24, 2019, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 23, 2019, 07:55:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2019, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2019, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 01:28:09 PM
Or hell, who am I kidding? If you can convince yourself that the entire planetary climate science establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake climate change, you can convince yourself that a 90% decline in salmon is either a lie, or due to something beyond our control anyway.

Precisely.

The crisis of evidence is not about the lack of it. It's a crisis of meaning and trust. What does the evidence mean, and who gets to ascribe that meaning. As far as I can tell, you can't fight that with more evidence.

I'm gonna quote you in my government class this fall.

What is the proper citation for a forums post?

Which system?
AMA?
MLA?
Chicago?
IEEE?
AMA?
ASA?

Purdue OWL has your back on those. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html)


In MLA:
Oexmelin. "Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread" Languish, August 23, 2019, http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13519.msg1197263.html Accessed August 23, 2019

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on August 24, 2019, 10:29:51 PM
Thanks. Citing forum discussion posts did not come up when I was writing my thesis in grad school.
APA has a specific citation style for discussion forums which includes the message number, while MLA is pretty similar to their generic internet citation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 25, 2019, 02:24:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 12:36:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 23, 2019, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 23, 2019, 08:27:31 AM
The salmon run this year was anticipated to be 5 million that has now been downgraded to 600,000

One of the main reasons identified in a report which made the reduced estimate is the significant warming of the ocean.

"An unprecedented heatwave, nicknamed "The Blob", dominated the Northeast Pacific Ocean from 2013-2016 (Figure 2). This ocean warming contributed to physical and biological changes, some of which continue to persist. Sea-surface-temperatures (SST) during the heatwave were 3-5°C above seasonal averages, extending down to depths of 100 m (Bond et al. 2015, Ross and Robert 2018, Smale et al. 2019). Climate modeling has shown that this heatwave can best be explained by human- caused warming (Walsh et al. 2018)."




Source?

https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40807071.pdf

Thanks.

We need more of this....I think.

More concrete examples of actual bad outcomes.

Of course, this is a trailing indicator, which isn't ideal when it comes to a problem that has to do with, oh I don't know, massive damage to the environment.

But still, some actual measureable and tangible fucked up eco systems.

Or hell, who am I kidding? If you can convince yourself that the entire planetary climate science establishment is engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake climate change, you can convince yourself that a 90% decline in salmon is either a lie, or due to something beyond our control anyway.

There is a good feature article about ocean warming and sea rise in the economist this week.  A hopeful sign that the need to take steps now is becoming less controversial.

We have a long way to go though.  The idea that mitigating the effects of climate change (ie reducing carbon now) is far less expensive then adapting to the effects of climate change is not a well known or accepted concept. But I guess it has always been is hard to convince people that short term pain for long term gain is a good idea.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on August 25, 2019, 09:49:44 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 23, 2019, 09:54:37 AM
From Bolsonaro's foreign policy advisor: « He added: "If you are wondering who is going to save the Amazon, here's a very straightforward answer for you: It's not the empty, hysterical and misleading rhetoric of the mainstream media, transnational bureaucrats and NGOs."

He's right of course. Those people can't save the Amazon when executive power is held by corrupt, ignorant fascists like Bolsonaro.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 06:45:19 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/29/heathrow-activists-fly-drones-attempt-ground-flights

QuoteActivists with Heathrow Pause, a splinter group of Extinction Rebellion, have said they will operate small toy drones from 3am on Friday 13 September.

A spokesman for the organisation said it expected "somewhere between 50 to a couple of hundred people" to be involved in the action, with each person using a drone. With disruption intended to last for a number of days and potentially longer, the activists said they "can't stand aside" and had to act.


:bleeding:

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: garbon on August 29, 2019, 07:28:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 06:45:19 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/29/heathrow-activists-fly-drones-attempt-ground-flights

QuoteActivists with Heathrow Pause, a splinter group of Extinction Rebellion, have said they will operate small toy drones from 3am on Friday 13 September.

A spokesman for the organisation said it expected "somewhere between 50 to a couple of hundred people" to be involved in the action, with each person using a drone. With disruption intended to last for a number of days and potentially longer, the activists said they "can't stand aside" and had to act.


:bleeding:

It is nice that they've already stated their intentions to break the law. Should make arresting them and convictions easier.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2019, 07:28:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 06:45:19 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/29/heathrow-activists-fly-drones-attempt-ground-flights

QuoteActivists with Heathrow Pause, a splinter group of Extinction Rebellion, have said they will operate small toy drones from 3am on Friday 13 September.

A spokesman for the organisation said it expected "somewhere between 50 to a couple of hundred people" to be involved in the action, with each person using a drone. With disruption intended to last for a number of days and potentially longer, the activists said they "can't stand aside" and had to act.


:bleeding:

It is nice that they've already stated their intentions to break the law. Should make arresting them and convictions easier.

Most likely exactly why they announced it ahead of time.  They want the exposure to their message.  A lot better to announce ahead of time so people know why they are being arrested.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 10:24:34 AM
Also, at least people in the planes will know why they crash and die
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 10:59:42 AM
I assume the other goal of announcing before hand is to cause the airport to shut down as a precaution.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 11:04:24 AM
And Trump does more damage

QuoteThe Trump administration is set to announce on Thursday that it intends to sharply curtail the regulation of methane emissions, a major contributor to climate change, according to an industry official with knowledge of the plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in a proposed rule, will aim to eliminate federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities.

The NYTimes article goes on to report that the large producers are opposed to the deregulation while the smaller producers who complain they cannot afford the added cost are supportive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/epa-methane-greenhouse-gas.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on August 29, 2019, 11:19:33 AM
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/tongass-national-forest-donald-trump-alaska/index.html

QuoteWashington (CNN)President Donald Trump has asked his agriculture secretary to provide a regulations exemption in order to open millions of acres of protected land within Alaska's Tongass National Forest to "potential logging, energy and mining projects," The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

The Post, citing conversations with three people briefed on the issue, said Trump asked Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue earlier this month to exempt the 16.7-million acre forest from Clinton-era logging restrictions that prevented the area from being open to some commercial interests for nearly 20 years. According to the paper, the move would impact "more than half of the world's largest intact temperate rainforest," which is filled with "with old-growth spruce, hemlock and cedar, rivers running with salmon, and dramatic fjords."

The move is the latest in ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to lift restrictions on protected lands in order to provide industry access to the land. Among other places, the administration has rolled back restrictions on Utah's Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument and the Bears Ears National Monument in what were two of the largest downsizes of protected lands in US history.

The Post, which noted that in 2016 the Forest Service completed a plan to "phase out old-growth logging" in the forest within 10 years, said it was "unclear how much logging would take place in the Tongass if federal restrictions were lifted because the Forest Service would have to amend its management plan to hold a new timber sale."

"The 2016 plan identified 962,000 acres as suitable for commercial timber and suggested no more than 568,000 acres of that should be logged," the Post said. It added that Congress had previously "designated more than 5.7 million acres of the forest as wilderness, which must remain undeveloped under any circumstances." Under Trump's plan, the paper said, 9.5 million acres could be impacted.

According to the paper, three unnamed sources said the President's request to Perdue came after a conversation in late June with Alaska's Republican governor, Mike Dunleavy, who supports the exemption. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, also supports the move, according to the paper, and, along with Dunleavy, has "pressed" Trump to provide an exemption.

In a statement provided to both CNN and the Post, Murkowski said the state's entire congressional delegation has "always supported a full exemption" from the regulations, which she argued are "harming our ability to develop a sustainable, year-round economy for the Southeast region, where less than one percent of the land is privately held."

The paper said three unnamed people from the Forest Service, which is under the Department of Agriculture, said the agency was "forging ahead with an exemption at Perdue's instructions."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 11:30:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 10:59:42 AM
I assume the other goal of announcing before hand is to cause the airport to shut down as a precaution.

Which is stupid, as you can't shut down hundreds/thousands of flights because some people on the Internet claim they'll fly drones.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 11:44:14 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 11:30:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 10:59:42 AM
I assume the other goal of announcing before hand is to cause the airport to shut down as a precaution.

Which is stupid, as you can't shut down hundreds/thousands of flights because some people on the Internet claim they'll fly drones.

Nevertheless that is likely their goal - given the name of their organization.  Whether their strategy works depends on whether the authorities take the threat seriously enough to shut down the airport and can't find another way to mitigate the threat (which is more likely to occur) and remains to be seen.

I was responding to your comment that people would crash and die which is actually the least likely of all possible outcomes.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on August 29, 2019, 11:48:37 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 29, 2019, 11:30:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 10:59:42 AM
I assume the other goal of announcing before hand is to cause the airport to shut down as a precaution.

Which is stupid, as you can't shut down hundreds/thousands of flights because some people on the Internet claim they'll fly drones.

Which is stupid, because the announcement of it ahead of time means that authorities will be looking for the drones, and shutting down the airport in response to the sighting of drones, instead of waiting to shut down in response to the crashing of planes.

If the protesters are trying to be as moral as possible in their protests, they'll announce in advance that a hazard will be created, even if it increases their own risk of arrest.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on August 29, 2019, 11:54:22 AM
Hopefully they'll be dealt with harshly. Shutting down important infrastructure by threats of mass killings sounds like terrorism to me.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on August 29, 2019, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 29, 2019, 11:54:22 AM
Hopefully they'll be dealt with harshly. Shutting down important infrastructure by threats of mass killings sounds like terrorism to me.

Okay, Mono.  We get it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on August 29, 2019, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2019, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 29, 2019, 11:54:22 AM
Hopefully they'll be dealt with harshly. Shutting down important infrastructure by threats of mass killings sounds like terrorism to me.

Okay, Mono.  We get it.

I'm sure those who depend on air transport or not being killed appreciate your soft spot for terrorism.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on August 29, 2019, 10:24:43 PM
 :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on August 30, 2019, 04:59:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 29, 2019, 03:04:15 PM
I'm sure those who depend on air transport or not being killed appreciate your soft spot for terrorism.

Okay, Mono.  We get it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on August 30, 2019, 10:19:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2019, 11:04:24 AM
The NYTimes article goes on to report that the large producers are opposed to the deregulation while the smaller producers who complain they cannot afford the added cost are supportive.
It is no surprise.  Regulations always have an added cost that smalltime players are unable to afford completely while bigger corporations who made their money a long time ago can afford it. And they like it because it keeps the smaller players out there...
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: fromtia on August 30, 2019, 12:23:49 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg)

Here is Margaret Thatcher giving a lengthy speech on the imminent danger of climate change and what can be done to avert the danger. This is from 1989.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Duque de Bragança on August 30, 2019, 12:36:18 PM
Quote from: fromtia on August 30, 2019, 12:23:49 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg)

Here is Margaret Thatcher giving a lengthy speech on the imminent danger of climate change and what can be done to avert the danger. This is from 1989.

Closing down coal mines did help.  :P
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on August 30, 2019, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 30, 2019, 12:36:18 PM

Closing down coal mines did help.  :P

It did. Maggie is a great environmentalist heroine.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Berkut on September 08, 2019, 02:37:58 PM
Well this is rather depressing:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending?fbclid=IwAR0vrMXAocKkOH64rdVFarJR_H-eTN3qjuutqPfYXK6UIJqjBtb45hMagcM
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 03:26:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2019, 02:37:58 PM
Well this is rather depressing:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending?fbclid=IwAR0vrMXAocKkOH64rdVFarJR_H-eTN3qjuutqPfYXK6UIJqjBtb45hMagcM

QuoteJonathan Franzen is a frequent contributor to The New Yorker and the author of, most recently, the novel "Purity."

What does he actually know about climate change, government action, or global cooperation? Maybe we should listen to experts on this critical issue.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Eddie Teach on September 08, 2019, 03:34:36 PM
We don't have psychohistory experts yet.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on September 08, 2019, 04:11:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 03:26:27 PM
What does he actually know about climate change, government action, or global cooperation? Maybe we should listen to experts on this critical issue.

Do you think experts are experts at communicating their expertise to a general audience?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on September 08, 2019, 07:18:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2019, 02:37:58 PM
Well this is rather depressing:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending?fbclid=IwAR0vrMXAocKkOH64rdVFarJR_H-eTN3qjuutqPfYXK6UIJqjBtb45hMagcM

Depressing, yes.  But also realistic and pertinent.  It will be required reading in my government class this week.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 10:45:41 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2019, 04:11:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 03:26:27 PM
What does he actually know about climate change, government action, or global cooperation? Maybe we should listen to experts on this critical issue.

Do you think experts are experts at communicating their expertise to a general audience?

Some of them are, some of them are not.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Zoupa on September 09, 2019, 12:41:45 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 10:45:41 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2019, 04:11:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 03:26:27 PM
What does he actually know about climate change, government action, or global cooperation? Maybe we should listen to experts on this critical issue.

Do you think experts are experts at communicating their expertise to a general audience?

Some of them are, some of them are not.

Great insight there buddy.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 12:04:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2019, 12:41:45 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 10:45:41 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2019, 04:11:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 03:26:27 PM
What does he actually know about climate change, government action, or global cooperation? Maybe we should listen to experts on this critical issue.

Do you think experts are experts at communicating their expertise to a general audience?

Some of them are, some of them are not.

Great insight there buddy.

It wasn't obvious to everyone.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2019, 03:26:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2019, 02:37:58 PM
Well this is rather depressing:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending?fbclid=IwAR0vrMXAocKkOH64rdVFarJR_H-eTN3qjuutqPfYXK6UIJqjBtb45hMagcM

QuoteJonathan Franzen is a frequent contributor to The New Yorker and the author of, most recently, the novel "Purity."

What does he actually know about climate change, government action, or global cooperation? Maybe we should listen to experts on this critical issue.

Not maybe, we definitely should be listening to the climate experts, which is one of the points he makes  ;)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on September 09, 2019, 01:41:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2019, 02:37:58 PM
Well this is rather depressing:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending?fbclid=IwAR0vrMXAocKkOH64rdVFarJR_H-eTN3qjuutqPfYXK6UIJqjBtb45hMagcM

The underlying eschatology in these hysterical screeds is much more interesting than what's written per se.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 01:47:17 PM
What we can do right now is a massive expansion of nuclear power. It's a proven concept that would help in a significant way. But noooo, so called environmentalists are against it... "Ew, the color of this lifeboat is so not me! Sorry I can't do this."
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 01:47:17 PM
What we can do right now is a massive expansion of nuclear power. It's a proven concept that would help in a significant way. But noooo, so called environmentalists are against it... "Ew, the color of this lifeboat is so not me! Sorry I can't do this."

Environmentalists have been that way about most solutions to the climate problem. I tend to view them with exasperation.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on September 09, 2019, 01:50:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 01:47:17 PM
What we can do right now is a massive expansion of nuclear power. It's a proven concept that would help in a significant way. But noooo, so called environmentalists are against it... "Ew, the color of this lifeboat is so not me! Sorry I can't do this."

Yeah it's very aggravating.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2019, 02:01:09 PM
There are practical limitations to an immediate massive expansion of nuclear power.  The upfront capital commitments are tremendous and the pool of skilled engineers and workers has shrunk quite a bit.  The time to make that commitment was a decade ago if we wanted to ramp up now.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on September 09, 2019, 02:28:58 PM
The levelized cost of energy of wind power is now so cheap that it appears to be the power generation of the future. It now significantly beats fossil fuels on cost alone, never mind environmental effects.

Problem with nuclear (aside from regulatory and environmentalist protest nonsense) was always the huge upfront financing gamble of building such plants: if other forms of energy decrease in cost, the poor suckers who invested in a nuclear plant supposed to generate power for twenty plus years at a certain fixed rate are screwed ... and that seems to be exactly what is happening: other forms of generating energy (particularly wind turbines) are getting much cheaper. Solar is making strides too, but is still I think more expensive than wind.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:33:16 PM
Wind and solar are great but we need baseload generation. Natural gas using modern combined cycle plants is a decent stop gap if nukes are, as I believe they are, a political impossibility.

I am looking over at ITER with great interest to see if that might be a future replacement.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2019, 10:36:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2019, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 16, 2019, 10:15:05 AM
Probably by the end of the 21st century there will be a massive carbon recapture infrastructure in place and that coupled with going full Brain, with 4th generation nuclear power plants online we'll be fine.

That is what I am hoping. I am really looking forward to seeing if we get results from the ITER project in 2025-2035.

I also hope it works, but practical application will still be a long way off even if it is completely successful.  Keep in mind that they are just proving that creating excess heat energy is possible but this design is not going to produce sufficient power for net electrical production. 

Also keep in mind that without immediate steps we are going to reach 1.5 degrees of warming by 2034.  Likely earlier as the projection is refined with more recent data showing the arctic is warming faster than anticipated (and the resulting release of methane which will speed things up).

btw, here is a interesting site that has a countdown clock updated with current data regarding emissions.  You can look at the calculations for 1.5 and 2 degrees.

https://www.inverse.com/article/51531-how-long-till-global-temperatures-reach-1-5-degrees-celsius

Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 02:39:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2019, 02:01:09 PM
There are practical limitations to an immediate massive expansion of nuclear power.  The upfront capital commitments are tremendous and the pool of skilled engineers and workers has shrunk quite a bit.  The time to make that commitment was a decade ago if we wanted to ramp up now.

And yet it has been done successfully even with no experience of nuclear power, so we know for a fact that it's possible. But we've been over this ground.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.

Well we are not going to replace everything with fission nuclear plants by 2034 either. Hell even doing the rather conservative step of using very modern natural gas plants is not happening so soon.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 02:41:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.

Well we are not going to replace everything with fission nuclear plants by 2034 either.

Burn the heretic.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:43:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.

Well we are not going to replace everything with fission nuclear plants by 2034 either.

No, but we can do a lot to avoid 1.5 now.  If ITER works, great.  But if we just sit on our hands until the proof of concept test results come in we are going to be in considerable trouble.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on September 09, 2019, 02:44:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:33:16 PM
Wind and solar are great but we need baseload generation. Natural gas using modern combined cycle plants is a decent stop gap if nukes are, as I believe they are, a political impossibility.

I am looking over at ITER with great interest to see if that might be a future replacement.

Not necessarily.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.475.4620

QuoteAbstract
Wind is the world's fastest growing electric energy source. Because it is intermittent, though, wind is not used to supply baseload electric power today. Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission grid is a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by wind intermittency. As more farms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. Consequently, the array behaves more and more similarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power. In this study, benefits of interconnecting wind farms were evaluated for 19 sites, located in the Midwestern United States, with annual average wind speeds at 80 m above ground, the hub height of modern wind turbines, greater than 6.9 m/s (class 3 or greater). We found that an average of 33 % and a maximum of 47 % of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point, then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20 % with only a 1.6 % loss of energy. 2 Although most parameters, such as intermittency, improved less than linearly as the number of interconnected sites increased, no saturation of the benefits was found. Thus, the benefits of interconnection continue to increase with more and more interconnected sites. 

Fact is, with a grid connected across North America, you won't need (extra) baseload generation capacity even if you have nothing but wind, because the chance of wind not blowing in enough of North America is basically zero. Add solar and tidal to the mix, and wind, ocean and sun have to simultaneously fail you across North America (to a significant extent) for baseload to become a problem. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 03:05:07 PM
And the cost of a grid that can shift that kind of power is low enough?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2019, 10:42:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 02:39:40 PM
And yet it has been done successfully even with no experience of nuclear power, so we know for a fact that it's possible. But we've been over this ground.

It took 20 years for the US to get nuclear to over 10% of electricity generation, despite focused federal subsidies.  And then another 15 years to break 20%.

The "good news" is that the US is still at about 20% so it isn't starting from scratch.  Bad news is a good chunk of that 20% is nearing or past obsolescence so big investments will be needed just to maintain share.

I agree the US should recommit but to get a significant amount built on a reasonable time scale will require heavy state investment. It won't happen because politically many Democrats would resist because of the big Nuclear bogeyman and the Republicans will resist because of the big Government bogeyman.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2019, 10:46:17 AM
Meanwhile our country is being led by a certifiable jackass who thinks wind power causes cancer whereas coal dust is a recommended part of a healthy daily diet.  Said jackass will be in charge for another 1.5 years during which time US energy policy will revolve around maximizing the number of industrial accidents and minimizing worker benefit packages.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on September 17, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Tamas on September 18, 2019, 06:11:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:

One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 07:21:09 AM
Siberia. The Russians will suddenly have no more terrible places to send their undesirables.

"I sentence you to indefinite exile in...*dramatic pause*...SIBERIA!"

"Wahoo!"
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2019, 06:11:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:

One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?

If you can find evidence that it will better somewhere please post it.

Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 07:21:09 AM
Siberia. The Russians will suddenly have no more terrible places to send their undesirables.

"I sentence you to indefinite exile in...*dramatic pause*...SIBERIA!"

"Wahoo!"

I know you were joking but the melting permafrost turning the North into an inhabitable bog undermines Tamas' gut reaction.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: PRC on September 18, 2019, 09:55:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2019, 06:11:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:

One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?

If there are, those areas might see a massive influx of climate migrants, spoiling the Eden like serenity.  Build a wall!
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on September 18, 2019, 10:08:36 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2019, 06:11:19 AM
One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?

I suspect that the main issue is that thinking of "climate change" as "it gets warmer" is too simplistic. If it just got warmer, some places, currently cold, would indeed be better off as far as humans go. 

Problem is that the change will result in a great deal of instability - both in weather and in life. We will see more extreme weather events - which nobody wants. Life, adapted to one set of climate factors, will have to change over to another set, leading to a lot of problems. Permafrost melting, that sort of thing. 
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2019, 10:47:47 AM
There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 10:58:06 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2019, 10:47:47 AM
There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.

And the question of reduction of sea life which reduces the amount of protein available to humans, reduction in farm yields because of reduction in soil quality not to mention loss of land itself.  The fact there are still some who try to say there is an upside is an indication that people don't yet fully understand the ramifications of climate change.  Its not a matter of nice weather moving north.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2019, 10:47:47 AM
There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.

Yes that will be most of the difficulty. On the other hand we're barely out of the Little Ice Age and it's quite reasonable to assume that we might have a balmy few centuries compared to the frozen hellscape of the last 4. Quiet work on newer, smaller and safer nuclear reactors and carbon recapture over the next century and a half will largely sort out the anxiety over our carbon emissions. It will be quite positive even if humans have accidentally geoengineered Earth to be resistant to the extreme Milankovitch cycles of semi-regular 100,000 year long Ice Ages as has been the case over the last 5 million years or so.

And whatever offsets we Westerners develop this century for our economies are going to be puny compared to the carbon output from India and Africa industrializing in the same time period.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 11:31:40 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:25:37 AM
And whatever offsets we Westerners develop this century for our economies are going to be puny compared to the carbon output from India and Africa industrializing in the same time period.

Huh? I thought you were saying we were going to sort this all out soon.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:34:34 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2019, 10:47:47 AM
There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.

Yes that will be most of the difficulty. On the other hand we're barely out of the Little Ice Age and it's quite reasonable to assume that we might have a balmy few centuries compared to the frozen hellscape of the last 4. Quiet work on newer, smaller and safer nuclear reactors and carbon recapture over the next century and a half will largely sort out the anxiety over our carbon emissions. It will be quite positive even if humans have accidentally geoengineered Earth to be resistant to the extreme Milankovitch cycles of semi-regular 100,000 year long Ice Ages as has been the case over the last 5 million years or so.

And whatever offsets we Westerners develop this century for our economies are going to be puny compared to the carbon output from India and Africa industrializing in the same time period.

15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:38:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 11:31:40 AMHuh? I thought you were saying we were going to sort this all out soon.

Yes I'm quite optimistic. Short term though I think these people will use their fossil fuels to bootstrap themselves up to a suffciently high GDP where they start cleaning up their local enviornments.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:34:34 AM15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.

Whatever climate we'll have this century is already baked into the system. The timescale for these infrastructure improvements is a century and a half. We survived the Medieval warm period, we'll handle this century fine I reckon.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:51:14 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:34:34 AM15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.

Whatever climate we'll have this century is already baked into the system. The timescale for these infrastructure improvements is a century and a half. We survived the Medieval warm period, we'll handle this century fine I reckon.

You should read the IPCC report.  Your conclusion that we are going to reach warming of 1.5 no matter what is not consistent with the science.  The report makes it clear that if we do nothing we will reach more than 2.0 in a short period of time but it we still have time to avoid 1.5 now.  Further your conclusion that we have seen all this before is also not consistent with the science.

You can reckon all you want.  I prefer to listen to the scientists.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Maladict on September 18, 2019, 11:52:22 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:34:34 AM15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.

Whatever climate we'll have this century is already baked into the system. The timescale for these infrastructure improvements is a century and a half. We survived the Medieval warm period, we'll handle this century fine I reckon.

This is one of the most idiotic things I've read on this board.

Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: frunk on September 18, 2019, 12:17:10 PM
The Medieval warm period was a local climate change that almost doesn't even make a mark on the global climate.

The last time we had a global climate close to this hot was 5000 BC and it took 3500 years to get there from the 1961-90 average (and another 3000 to get back down).  We've done it in less than 50 years.

That pace of change is so radically different we really have no idea how well or how quickly the ecosystems will be able to adapt.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 18, 2019, 12:17:10 PM
The Medieval warm period was a local climate change that almost doesn't even make a mark on the global climate.

The last time we had a global climate close to this hot was 5000 BC and it took 3500 years to get there from the 1961-90 average (and another 3000 to get back down).  We've done it in less than 50 years.

That pace of change is so radically different we really have no idea how well or how quickly the ecosystems will be able to adapt.

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: frunk on September 18, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 12:54:49 PM

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 18, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 12:54:49 PM

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

Ah, agreed.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Malthus on September 18, 2019, 01:27:19 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 18, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 12:54:49 PM

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

I'd say it is absolutely guaranteed that enough others will survive - but they will likely not be the ones we humans want.

The concept here is "weed species". "Weed species" is a term sometimes used to define species, plants or animals, that adapt easily to new climates, resist all attempts at eradication, and spread widely - like rats, pigeons, dandelions or raccoons in urban environments. They are not susceptible to elimination by changes in environment. They are generalists and survivors.

I have no doubt that hardy weed species will survive and even thrive, as the competition gets killed off by climate change - but humans would probably find a planet full of "weed species" a lot less attractive. 

[Note that humans themselves are basically a "weed species"!]
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 18, 2019, 01:29:48 PM
Yi and FB at least.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Syt on September 18, 2019, 02:46:46 PM
(https://britishbusinessenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/CO2-emissions.gif)
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: The Brain on September 18, 2019, 02:52:02 PM
Let's wait for the 2019 numbers before we panic.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: frunk on September 18, 2019, 03:37:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2019, 01:27:19 PM
I'd say it is absolutely guaranteed that enough others will survive - but they will likely not be the ones we humans want.

The concept here is "weed species". "Weed species" is a term sometimes used to define species, plants or animals, that adapt easily to new climates, resist all attempts at eradication, and spread widely - like rats, pigeons, dandelions or raccoons in urban environments. They are not susceptible to elimination by changes in environment. They are generalists and survivors.

I have no doubt that hardy weed species will survive and even thrive, as the competition gets killed off by climate change - but humans would probably find a planet full of "weed species" a lot less attractive. 

[Note that humans themselves are basically a "weed species"!]

Enough survive for what?  If it was just climate, just the temperature rising, I think you are right.  However there are a lot of ecosystems that are already undergoing tremendous stress from pollution, habitat destruction and human predation.  Some of them have already become mostly weed species with the resulting loss in diversity.

Humans will survive in the short term (100s of years) barring a complete and total environmental collapse (or other doomsday scenario such as nuclear war or asteroid).  However the number of humans that can effectively live on the planet may drop significantly due to big chunks of the food web getting blown away.  It's possible, with genetic engineering, we might be able to plug those holes but we are a ways off from doing that on the scale that may be necessary.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 03:53:13 PM
You are talking to Malthus here. He did once predict "positive checks" would stop the human population from getting too large.
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: grumbler on September 18, 2019, 07:19:27 PM
The problem is that it isn't a continuous change.  Not 1.5 degrees in fifteen years, then 2.0 degrees in 20 years, then 2.5 degrees in 25 years, etc.  Once 2.0 degrees sets in, Mother Nature says "fuck that" and unleashes 3.5 degrees five years later*  There's a lot of carbon held now in fragile environments that won't tolerate much heating before they break down. Today Borneo released more CO2 than the entire US did.

I used to be a believer, like Legbiter, in the technological solution.  That me now seems quaint to informed me.  Ignorance was so much more fun and hopeful.



* Generalized here, don't hold me to these precise numbers
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: Oexmelin on September 18, 2019, 07:24:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 03:53:13 PM
You are talking to Malthus here. He did once predict "positive checks" would stop the human population from getting too large.

Was that before, or after Observations on the Effects of Strollers?
Title: Re: Everything's fine/fucked? - Climate Change Megathread
Post by: viper37 on September 18, 2019, 10:52:18 PM
I'll play devil's advocate.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 10:58:06 AM
And the question of reduction of sea life which reduces the amount of protein available to humans,
Eat more plants, it's gonna save the world, or so I was told by the greens ;)
Fishes tend to move to the north.  Salmons are seen in the arctic nowadays.  A few of them, anyway.