|
Morose Man posted:One phrase sounds alarming but puzzles imbeciles. One phrase sounds non-alarming which stacks with all the other cognitive problems I mentioned to guarantee we will never address this problem until we see Los Angeles drown. I prefer Arizona Bay too.
|
# ¿ Dec 8, 2011 18:03 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:27 |
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Right but the data doesn't indicate that the temperature change rate is greater or lesser than previous events because that's not how the data works. Look at the K/T boundary which likely had much much much greater rates of change than now and yeah, there's a mass extinction event, but it didn't mean all life died off. That which survived, evolved. This must be very comforting to the yet-to-be methane breathing post-humans.
|
# ¿ Dec 8, 2011 19:51 |
|
Strudel Man posted:Hah, are you joking? Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Dec 9, 2011 |
# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 10:00 |
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater. It seems people really only seem to pay attention to contaminants after someone fracks in the area. There was a documentary on fracking in the US which while interesting, completely ignored records from the loving 1800s of gas in drinking water. In fact, the groundwater fracturing isn't even massive enough to cause the kind of contamination people accuse it of. http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf "Elevated levels of dissolved methane in domestic wells generally increase in those wells in proximity to gas production wells. [...] A mud-gas log conducted in 1980 (prior to intensive gas production well installation) located only 300 m from the location of the blowout does not indicate a gas show (distinctive peaks on a gas chromatograph) within 300 meters of the surface. [...] Although some natural migration of gas would be expected above a gas field such as Pavillion, data suggest that enhanced migration of gas has occurred within ground water at depths used for domestic water supply and to domestic wells."
|
# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 11:06 |
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Actually, the EPA does agree. Read the article you yourself linked, and you'll find that the migration they're discussing isn't from fracking, but is from disposal pits: Can I get a recap on this? First you tell us there's no groundwater contamination from fracking, then I copy the bits of a study that say that's not true based on elevated methane levels compared to historical data in the surveyed area. Then you tell me you're correct based on data from shallow pits but the study specifically refuses to link shallow and deep contamination as having only one source. There is a discrepancy here which I would like explained. quote:Natural breakdown products of organic contaminants like BTEX and glycols include acetate and benzoic acid; these breakdown products are more enriched in the When quoting the report: quote:In fact, the EPA also points out what I say (note that this explanation was provided by the EPA): This paragraph is right down from what you quoted: quote:A lines of reasoning approach utilized at this site best supports an explanation that inorganic and organic constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have contaminated ground water at and below the depth used for domestic water supply. However, further investigation would be needed to determine if organic compounds associated with hydraulic fracturing have migrated to domestic wells in the area of investigation. A lines of evidence approach also indicates that gas production activities have likely enhanced gas migration at and below depths used for domestic water supply and to domestic wells in the area of investigation. Can you please explain how this all relates to poor disposal practices and poor disposal practices only?
|
# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 18:03 |
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Sure! What you're seeing is "fracking fluids may be involved in the contamination" and what I'm pointing out is that the reason for that is improper disposal of said fluids after fracking. Not "as a result of fracking" but "as a result of some chucklefucks disposing of waste in the groundwater lens." quote:Holy gently caress, fracking improves gas migration? Well that's news! Of course, that is a discussion of "at depth" and not "outside of the fracking radius and directly into the aquifer." In fact, that very same paragraph contains this line: "A comparison of gas composition and stable carbon isotope values indicate that gas in production and monitoring wells is of similar thermogenic origin and has undergone little or no degradation. A similar evaluation in domestic wells suggests the presence of gas of thermogenic origin undergoing biodegradation. This observation is consistent with a pattern of dispersion and degradation with upward migration observed for organic compounds." Is the gas itself not a pollutant that is present directly because of fracking activity? Or is it present only because of dumping? The bit from EPA you quote: "However, further investigation would be needed to determine if organic compounds associated with hydraulic fracturing have migrated to domestic wells in the area of investigation." I don't see how it supports your assertion of contamination through disposal but not other possibilities since the statement is very noncommittal. quote:"the existing data at this time do not establish a definitive link between deep and shallow contamination of the aquifer." Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Dec 12, 2011 |
# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 19:39 |
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:There are two different stages of contamination being discussed. I repeatedly have tried to distinguish them, You: "There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater." So there's no contamination from fracking? What then are these multiple stages of contamination if fracking is not one? quote:but there is the upper contamination phase near the groundwater lens (which the EPA study indicated is from disposal) and there's the lower potential phase of contamination, for which there is no indication of fracking being at fault. Seriously, there is not one continuous phase of contamination and you can't point to the upper lensing and say "See! It's all fracking's fault!" No indication? Before I go further into that please note that nobody here has made the cartoon claim you're propping up. Nobody's claiming a single source of pollution (although you very much argue for one) or blames the process of fracking but instead the companies engaged in it, to whom we owe eternal gratitude both for their dumping practices and their working methods. As for no indication, let's go back to EPA: quote:[W]hen considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing. A review of well completion reports and cement bond/variable density logs in the area around MW01 and MW02 indicates instances of sporadic bonding outside production casing directly above intervals of hydraulic fracturing. Also, there is little lateral and vertical continuity of hydraulically fractured tight sandstones and no lithologic barrier (laterally continuous shale units) to stop upward vertical migration of aqueous constituents of hydraulic fracturing in the event of excursion from fractures. In the event of excursion from sandstone units, vertical migration of fluids could also occur via nearby wellbores. For instance, at one production well, the cement bond/variable density log indicates no cement until 671 m below ground surface. Hydraulic fracturing occurred above this depth at nearby production wells. Back to you: quote:This is a science, not a religion. You can have faith in your answer, but I am a scientist and this is my field. I know more about this matter than you no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, unless you're a secret geologist and not telling any of us. I think you'll find my stance pretty universal among geologists and the only reason anyone gives a poo poo about fracking is because a bunch of people got the idea that correlation = causation firmly wedged up their butt until their congressmen started taking a look, at which point the oil companies did some studies (along with numerous academic institutions) and people started screaming that big oil is lying to us. This paragraph could have been a link or something but instead it's just a long "I know more than you do." Demonstrate it. quote:Here, listen to this starting at about 3:30, the guy giving the interview is a fantastic structural geologists and explains this all in very easy to understand terms. "There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all."
|
# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 21:37 |
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Well, there's one that exists and one that doesn't. Deep groundwater contamination from fracking being the latter kind of contamination. No. What are the multiple stages of contamination that you refer to? You insinuated there are more than dumping. Which is it, only dumping or other sources as well, and if the latter, which? quote:"If it's done safely, the biggest risk is that the fracturing puts a shale gas or hydrocarbon bearing rock in communication with a groundwater aquifer." Of course the next sentence makes it clear by clarifying if you're not being a stupid gently caress and fracking right beside an aquifer it isn't really an issue. Admittedly it is possible for contamination to occur if you're loving retarded about it. "There's no groundwater contamination from fracking at all. Every single instance of gas in groundwater and other contamination is in areas that have had a long history of that exact contaminant in the groundwater." quote:I have been. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Dec 12, 2011 |
# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 21:53 |
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Right, and if you frack close to an aquifer, there will still have already been containment leakage by virtue of proximity. Therefore, contamination is not the fault of fracking. quote:There is contamination of the aquifer lens and contamination caused by deep reservoirs. The former is caused by disposal, the latter doesn't happen. The latter is also fracking. quote:This is a stupid statement. It's not like I have a stack of fracking research papers handy but it's still very well known within geology and very well understood. I've already told you where to find papers that back up what I say. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Dec 13, 2011 |
# ¿ Dec 13, 2011 10:36 |
|
McDowell posted:The 21st is gonna be a 3000 ft drop cutting edge steel coaster with triple inverted loops, water effects, and magnetic acceleration.
|
# ¿ Dec 14, 2011 11:14 |
|
Radd McCool posted:Also, what's the viability of just planting a trillion trees? I've read that Freemon Dyson, the legendary physicist and mathematician, calcualted that about a trillion trees would solve our problem for some time. And as trees are wonderful, I'm heavily biased in favor of this.
|
# ¿ Dec 15, 2011 16:41 |
|
Paper Mac posted:The occupations need to get hooked up with the food sovereignty movement ASAP. One major thing almost universally missing from the program was an awareness of agricultural issues- there's a general awareness that corporate agriculture is hosed up, but there wasn't any coherent effort that I saw to, say, occupy arable land, close nutrient loops, teach people polyculture techniques, etc. But I do appreciate the sentiment.
|
# ¿ Dec 20, 2011 10:58 |
|
Ad Astra posted:The difference between climate and weather is that you can reliably predict weather for a few days whereas climate can easily be predicted decades into the future. If you have a coherent argument to make on the topic of this thread, do it. I haven't laughed yet today.
|
# ¿ Dec 21, 2011 11:51 |
|
Killer robot posted:The wealthy helping the poor to become less poor, whether by transfer of knowledge or actual transfer of goods, is not an evil thing. It may need care and thought to be useful rather than destructive, but so has every worthwhile tool we've developed back to fire, which doubtless was only adopted by neighboring tribes out of imperialism. You only need to look as far as India to see how many different faces the gifts of imperialism have, and whitewashing it into mindless applause for technological advance and the ever-nebulous "progress" is not acceptable, since based on their history Western imperial powers (or any imperial powers at all) are not capable nor will ever be capable of providing the enlightened guidance their stewardship promises. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Jan 9, 2012 |
# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 13:34 |
|
The Entire Universe posted:I always saw a religious angle in digging/sucking poo poo out of the ground versus using pure sunlight and breezes to generate power. This might be the book for you. http://www.amazon.com/Cyclonopedia-Complicity-Materials-Reza-Negarestani/dp/0980544009 We are powered by corpse juice: a chtonic wine squeezed from a ripe crop of bodies interred by processes natural or mechanical, a vintage gran reservoir. I'm sorry to disturb your eternal rest but we have made room for you in our gas tank.
|
# ¿ Jan 24, 2012 12:38 |
|
spunkshui posted:edit: If we do gently caress up the planet a lot of plants and animals might die off but we sure as hell wont. We can survive in Antarctica, we can survive in space, could survive on whatever hell hole we turn this place into.
|
# ¿ Mar 6, 2012 11:27 |
|
El Grillo posted:http://energyfromthorium.com/ I shouldn't come back here
|
# ¿ Mar 7, 2012 20:44 |
|
McDowell posted:We're gonna make great jobs for our kids picking through mountains of e-Waste!
|
# ¿ Mar 26, 2012 10:22 |
|
Pipe Dreamer posted:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html "CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those without." The author Happer himself is apparently not afraid to Godwin climatologists and the Dr. whose website he quotes is a proponent of intelligent design. ~a little googling is all it takes~
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2012 07:29 |
|
Holy Calamity! posted:So..uh, isn't that methane leak kind of a huge loving deal? I just caught up on this thread but why wasn't that more heavily publicized? People just want to continue ignoring it for their own mental wellbeing?
|
# ¿ May 21, 2012 17:49 |
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:I think blaming this situation on capitalism is missing the forest for the trees. This is a tragedy of the commons situation, and it probably would have happened under communism or socialism all the same. Capitalism has definitely sped up the process, but I don't think we would have avoided it by getting rid of capitalism alone. The tragedy of the commons comes to be exactly because there is a motive to extract more private profit from the commons (if I can't expect to sell infinitely more cows by extracting infinitely more grass there is no point to expanding my grass extraction beyond my personal and my community's needs). Certainly it is possible to spend all available resources under any possible system but I refuse to accept that capitalism is not the main issue currently at hand when the economic system we labour under values production of metric tons of total garbage if there's profit involved. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 08:41 on May 28, 2012 |
# ¿ May 28, 2012 08:38 |
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:I imagine he's referring to something akin to a Kantian State of Nature in which the strongest among us simple take and use whatever they want, be it food, property, or other humans. Considering the relatively brutish nature of human beings, I'm inclined to agree that a total collapse of society would mean a lot of forcible mating.
|
# ¿ Jun 8, 2012 10:04 |
|
Torka posted:Is exceptional just being used as a superlative in that chart or is it meant literally in the sense of "this is something that doesn't usually happen"? Both. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/classify.htm
|
# ¿ Jul 26, 2012 18:31 |
|
Goddamn posted:How exactly is this any different from what occurs in even the smallest human groups of any sort? Replace "society" with "family" or "clan" or whatever. Hell, "party of 2". Isn't this very much human/animal nature? How are we exactly supposed to escape this by going back to nature, rather than striving to understand and overcome our psychological faults?
|
# ¿ Jul 27, 2012 13:03 |
|
Arkane posted:My point was that within the sample of 1971 to 2010 or 1979 to 2012, we're not seeing acceleration in temperature rise predicted by climate models. Temperature has to accelerate VERY rapidly in order to get to some of the apocalyptic projections bandied about here. Do you recognize this?
|
# ¿ Nov 7, 2012 22:12 |
|
Arkane posted:The IPCC's projections from their most recent publication, the 4th Assessment Report (AR4). In the 12 years since their models began, our observations are "colder" than predicted. And we've yet to see any reason why they would speed up besides hypothetical discussions of feedback loops. We still don't have a firm grip on whether cloud cover changes will have a warming or cooling effect. It should be crystal clear that any predictions of catastrophic warming are contingent upon severe warming feedbacks. CO2 in and of itself will not do it, because as I said, each additional molecule in the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect. I would additionally venture a guess that you're talking about 'catastrophic warming' instead of global warming in general as you did before because on the first page of this thread it specifically says that trying to derail the thread by questioning the latter will get you banned. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Nov 7, 2012 |
# ¿ Nov 7, 2012 23:24 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I want you to defend that statement with facts. How can war, inherently a destructive and murderous activity, lead to economic prosperity?
|
# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 08:41 |
|
Arkane posted:Hence the reason that I have scoffed at some of the apocalypse planning in this thread.
|
# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 08:00 |
|
Why didn't you quote what preceded "Thus"? It's kind of important to establish context. quote:Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Because it doesn't support your ramblings?
|
# ¿ May 11, 2013 20:20 |
|
Arkane posted:Actually, I'll limit it down even further:
|
# ¿ May 11, 2013 21:18 |
|
Arkane posted:Changes are not happening "worse than originally projected." The reverse is true. Global temperature has been in stasis for over a decade, far below the predictions of climate models (leading to arguments about *WHY* the models have been so wrong). gently caress you Arkane. Also ITT: D&D mod promises worthless even when written down.
|
# ¿ Jul 23, 2013 16:57 |
|
Arkane posted:How does this make sense as a response to my question?
|
# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 19:47 |
|
Arkane posted:Yeah, I agree with Bjorn Lomborg virtually 100% in principle on climate policies as they relate the developing world.
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2014 12:33 |
|
TACD posted:None of these articles are more than a few days old at most. Rest assured that when Arkane's next denial cycle rolls around there will once again have been more reports of the direct consequences of climate change than is feasible to post.
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2014 08:26 |
|
Illuminti posted:So with absolutely no evidence you are calling him an liar. More than that you are accusing him of lying with the goal of cynically smearing other climate scientist for the agenda of I guess Big Oil? The only information we have is from a well respected scientist saying he has been harassed and ostracized by his former colleagues and peers. I would assume the assumption for a person of his caliber would be that he's not a lying shill and should at least be afford a modicum of respect. But you are illustrating perfectly the mindset of the people who are harassing and cutting off ties with them. He's guilty by association, he's strayed from the true path, therefore he is wrong and the assumption should be has an evil agenda or is getting paid. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/16/rejected-climate-science-paper-environmental-research-letters quote:"The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any 'activism' on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times' article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal's high editorial standards. The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available." Could it be that this row is actually more over one guy's bruised ego than climate science?
|
# ¿ May 16, 2014 18:25 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:27 |
|
Arkane posted:Probably the least controversial thing in this thread to say that the left/right divide is mostly about the size & role of government. It's endemic to every single political debate in the western world. As far as socialists or communists proper, who cares? That demographic is pretty much just unemployed people on the internet at this point. Also, your point on communists is very childish and perfectly showcases you for what you are and how much weight your knee-jerk opinions hold. There are probably more worthless posters on this forum but we'll have to look into scammers and child abusers to find them.
|
# ¿ May 18, 2014 10:16 |