|
Ah and that's the detail I missed. Gettin soft, delenda. SUMMER IS COMING
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Weather continues to troll Oklahoma.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
How cloud cover will change in a warming climate remains one of the biggest unknowns in modeling future temperature changes...it is (was) assumed to have a slightly positive feedback, which is to say changes in cloud cover were going to amplify warming. New research out of CERN points to it being a negative feedback that will slow the warming: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies That is good news. Also goes hand-in-hand with what I posted a couple weeks back about the Earth getting greener.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Arkane posted:How cloud cover will change in a warming climate remains one of the biggest unknowns in modeling future temperature changes...it is (was) assumed to have a slightly positive feedback, which is to say changes in cloud cover were going to amplify warming. I hate to have to reply to you, but it has already been pointed out (without response from you [that's a good thing, btw]) that the increase in leaves has accompanied an accelerating level of CO2, so "the Earth getting greener" is at best indifferent or irrelevant news. Similarly, increasing historical cloud cover (as opposed to the prehistory assumptions discussed in that paper) has accompanied increasing temperatures. We know that increasing cloud cover increases temperature today, and that increasing temperatures increase cloud cover today. The paper says that "climate modelers can't assume that the ancient past was much less cloudy" - they don't need to do that, since it was much less cloudy a century ago and we can see how CO2, SO2 and other particulates have affected the climate since then. The article says "the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but 'the highest values become improbable' ", not that temperatures will not continue to rise or that the effects will not be catastrophic. Note that the global temperature anomaly is currently in the upper range of the IPCC's worse case projections from the 2013 report. There is no good news.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Arkane I truly do not understand what you are arguing. What is the whole of the information you link here? Almost every piece you link is either from think tanks or pieces taken out of context from a larger study. Your goalposts have slid considerably, which sure I could agree different information would naturally change your viewpoint, but when something new comes out you're immediately posting something from a defensive point. What do you believe regarding climate change? How much have those beliefs changed over the last 5 years? What made you think differently then than you do now regarding it?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Its Arkane, the guy was previously arguing AGW was made up.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I hate to have to reply to you, but it has already been pointed out (without response from you [that's a good thing, btw]) that the increase in leaves has accompanied an accelerating level of CO2, so "the Earth getting greener" is at best indifferent or irrelevant news. The takeaway from this post is that the Earth is getting greener faster than we expected. And with the Earth greening faster than we expected, this sequesters more carbon than we expected and specifically relating to what I just posted...creates more aerosols than we expected, which will seed more clouds than we expected. Because, interestingly, the areas where we are seeing the most greening will create the most aerosols (boreal forests with pine trees). Placid Marmot posted:Similarly, increasing historical cloud cover (as opposed to the prehistory assumptions discussed in that paper) has accompanied increasing temperatures. We know that increasing cloud cover increases temperature today, and that increasing temperatures increase cloud cover today. It is DEFINITELY false that "we know that increasing cloud cover increases temperature today." It's also not as simple as that, since there are different types of clouds that have different effects on either inbound or outbound radiation. We have a lot of clues about what may happen with clouds in a warming world, but nothing close to definitive. In fact, your first link says pretty much exactly what I said lol: "Currently the role that water vapor and clouds play in warming or cooling the Earth's climate system is being investigated by scientists." Clouds are a big unknown. If you don't trust your own NOAA link, here is a link where alarmist SkS also says the exact same thing I said in their first graf: http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm This latest study is fascinating because CERN can do some really complicated poo poo, and they were able to create clouds without sulfuric acid. That's a huge breakthrough in a topic where we desperately need more knowledge. Placid Marmot posted:The article says "the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but 'the highest values become improbable' ", not that temperatures will not continue to rise or that the effects will not be catastrophic. Note that the global temperature anomaly is currently in the upper range of the IPCC's worse case projections from the 2013 report. Decreasing the upper bound is unequivocally good. Maybe El Nino has spiked us up above the models, I haven't seen a model/observation comparison in a few months, but we're in a huge outlier year temperature-wise and we have otherwise been significantly below the models. As far as "there is no good news"...well, if you don't know much about the topic, as it appears, then yeah I could see why you only see the bad news you specifically look for.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Its not going to offset AGW, Arkane. I don't know what your intended goal is in arguing this, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. Clouds are not going to save us from the effects of AGW.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Given that El nino occurs roughly every two-seven years it's hard to justify calling this year's temperatures an outlier, especially given that most estimates attribute about 10% of above average warming to El nino last year, and likely will contribute about 25% of warming for 2016
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The takeaway from this post is that the Earth is getting greener faster than we expected. And with the Earth greening faster than we expected, this sequesters more carbon than we expected and specifically relating to what I just posted...creates more aerosols than we expected, which will seed more clouds than we expected. Because, interestingly, the areas where we are seeing the most greening will create the most aerosols (boreal forests with pine trees). You don't need to link your post since I specifically referenced it and mentioned that it was irrelevant, since atmospheric the CO2 increase accelerated both during the studied timeframe and subsequently. quote:It is DEFINITELY false that "we know that increasing cloud cover increases temperature today." It's also not as simple as that, since there are different types of clouds that have different effects on either inbound or outbound radiation. Yeah, we know that the types of cloud that block more incoming than outgoing energy are the types that are decreasing with increasing sea surface temperature, as stated in the link I gave. quote:We have a lot of clues about what may happen with clouds in a warming world, but nothing close to definitive. In fact, your first link says pretty much exactly what I said lol: "Currently the role that water vapor and clouds play in warming or cooling the Earth's climate system is being investigated by scientists." Clouds are a big unknown. If you don't trust your own NOAA link, here is a link where alarmist SkS also says the exact same thing I said in their first graf: http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm "Being investigated" does not mean that we don't already have a good understanding of what effects the different cloud types have. The link you give specifically states, at the top of the page, "Although the cloud feedback is one of the largest remaining uncertainties in climate science, evidence is building that the net cloud feedback is likely positive, and unlikely to be strongly negative." quote:Maybe El Nino has spiked us up above the models, I haven't seen a model/observation comparison in a few months, but we're in a huge outlier year temperature-wise and we have otherwise been significantly below the models. Do you think that modelers don't know about the existence of El Niño? The 2013 IPCC report prominently features the Smith et al. 2012 forecast that shows this year's spike as approximately its upper bound. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What is the point of saying how much of one particular thing it would take to get rid of all the CO2 produced by humans on earth? That's like giving up. Five Billion Football fields!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Arkane I truly do not understand what you are arguing. What is the whole of the information you link here? Almost every piece you link is either from think tanks or pieces taken out of context from a larger study. Your goalposts have slid considerably, which sure I could agree different information would naturally change your viewpoint, but when something new comes out you're immediately posting something from a defensive point. He believes in the Climategate email scandal conspiracy theory. That should pretty much sum him up entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Almost every piece you link is either from think tanks or pieces taken out of context from a larger study. This is just something you've made up out of thin air. I'd guess its been years since I've linked to a think tank, and nothing is out of context. Banana Man posted:Your goalposts have slid considerably, which sure I could agree different information would naturally change your viewpoint, but when something new comes out you're immediately posting something from a defensive point. Also not true. And it only comes across as defensive because this is a highly polarized forum. Banana Man posted:What do you believe regarding climate change? How much have those beliefs changed over the last 5 years? What made you think differently then than you do now regarding it? My position has been that the climate is warming, but for two main reasons, it is unlikely to be all that bad. The first is that the climate models have likely exaggerated future warming for a number of different reasons, and the second is that humans are likely to be able to adapt to changes because they are so slow moving and because the world is becoming extremely wealthy extremely quickly. As an overall criticism, people are far too dismissive of technology altering the status quo. I mean in 2018, there's going to be hundreds of thousands of electric Teslas on the roads, many of them powered by solar panels. Did anybody predict that 10 years ago? Somebody called bullshit when I said half of all new cars sold in the US in 2025 may be electric, and yet I think this looks far more likely now than when I predicted it. Things will change very quickly for the better in many facets of our life as has been the case for the hundreds of years that capitalism has existed. It'd be shocking to me if natgas/coal is the biggest source of power/oil the biggest source of transportation fuel 40 years from now. Yet the models assume accelerating fossil fuel usage. Does that seem logical or probable to you? edit: on the last point, I'd say a position that has changed within the last 5 years is reticence to embrace the temperature record. There were I felt credible reasons to be skeptical of its preciseness, but I think it was Richard Muller with Berkeley Earth (who had similar reservations) did a very rigorous and comprehensive re-analysis and found it to be just about accurate. Squalid posted:Given that El nino occurs roughly every two-seven years it's hard to justify calling this year's temperatures an outlier, especially given that most estimates attribute about 10% of above average warming to El nino last year, and likely will contribute about 25% of warming for 2016 Not all El Ninos are the same. Look at 1998. Multiyear trends is what we want to be focusing on. Arkane fucked around with this message at 04:33 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not all El Ninos are the same. Look at 1998. Multiyear trends is what we want to be focusing on. Which trend do you mean?  
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Which trend do you mean? The 30 year trend is probably the benchmark (I think we're at around .16C/decade), but I think looking at smaller slices can be instructive, especially if we can isolate something like the hiatus from 2001-2014 which diverged observations so significantly from the models. I realize this graph gets pasted a lot as some sort of dumb gotcha, but it is actually a great illustration of decadal trends within oceans. You can see warm phase oceans led to large decadal increases starting from the late 70s into the end of the century, and when you had the ocean phase flip from warm to cool, you see it level off quite significantly. One of the primary reasons that the models are likely to be exaggerated is that they were built upon the warm-phase 80s & 90s (and one can see that they were immediately and significantly off in the 00s). Lemming posted:He believes in the Climategate email scandal conspiracy theory. That should pretty much sum him up entirely. I mean...I was posting about malfeasance at CRU/Mann before Climategate; it was a hot button issue before any email ever leaked. So yes I believe in that scandal, and no it's not some wacky conspiracy theory. They undermined peer review, thwarted FOIA, conspired to deny data from other researchers, and blatantly deleted data which showed proxy/temperature mismatches in two high-profile temperature reconstructions. They crossed the line from scientists to activists. People generally frame the issue as one where global warming was put in doubt, and some media outlets pretended that it did just that. But for those who knew the issue well, it was strictly about a group of scientists who write the entire paleo reconstruction section of the IPCC report conspiring to make the reconstruction data as alarmist as possible. The reconstruction section of climate science is a cesspit of activists using very bad statistics to come to highly suspect conclusions that are in direct opposition to anthropological data from that time period. It's a complete farce, and if their field was medicine instead of paleoclimate, Jones & Mann at a minimum would be out of a job.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You don't need to link your post since I specifically referenced it and mentioned that it was irrelevant, since atmospheric the CO2 increase accelerated both during the studied timeframe and subsequently. Alright let's slow this down: you're saying that something that was expected to happen (CO2 accelerating) makes something that was not expected to happen (Earth greening very quickly) irrelevant? Makes no sense. I mean, NCC thought it was important enough to publish, which isn't a complete validation, but it gives you at least a higher benchmark to dismiss it than that nonsense. Placid Marmot posted:Yeah, we know that the types of cloud that block more incoming than outgoing energy are the types that are decreasing with increasing sea surface temperature, as stated in the link I gave. If you read through the 7 paragraphs on clouds in AR5, you'll see that the datasets do not even agree with each other on changes in cloud cover, let alone being able to identify net impacts on temperature. Isolating one study and calling it evidence when you have countervailing data is a joke. Placid Marmot posted:Do you think that modelers don't know about the existence of El Niño? The 2013 IPCC report prominently features the Smith et al. 2012 forecast that shows this year's spike as approximately its upper bound. If we hit cool phase ENSO in 2018 and we're back below the MoE for the models, are you going to be in here posting about it? Not exactly intellectually honest taking a victory lap for the models in a year where ENSO has given an adrenaline shot to temperature.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I mean...I was posting about malfeasance at CRU/Mann before Climategate; it was a hot button issue before any email ever leaked. So yes I believe in that scandal, and no it's not some wacky conspiracy theory. They undermined peer review, thwarted FOIA, conspired to deny data from other researchers, and blatantly deleted data which showed proxy/temperature mismatches in two high-profile temperature reconstructions. They crossed the line from scientists to activists. This is what the conspiracy theory is, yes, so saying you believe it is saying you believe in the conspiracy theory.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Arkane posted:This is just something you've made up out of thin air. I'd guess its been years since I've linked to a think tank, and nothing is out of context. Ok my bad on that those; I only remember the think tanks (other than recent stuff). quote:The first is that the climate models have likely exaggerated future warming for a number of different reasons Ok, if you would, could you expand on the reasons why? Are there specific reports where you can point a finger and say there, there is an agenda behind this? Also, when you say exaggerated are you also including ones with what you could consider reasonably conservative estimates that include oh say a broad range of possibilities but you overall don't disagree with?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
I just looked at the old thread (so you don't have to) and I found some gems.Arkane Dec 18 2012 posted:On a 30 year scale, we're rising at a decadal rate of ~.13C Arkane Jan 29 2013 posted:If the very recent trends (10 years of little warming, ~35 years of .17/decade C) relative to modeled predictions are indicative of future warmth, we are certainly severely exaggerating the risk. Arkane May 11 2013 posted:As of April 2013, temperatures have been flat for well over a decade, with a longer-term trend around .15 C per decade. That is not an inaccurate or misleading statement Arkane June 11 2014 posted:Yeah the longer-term trend is around .14C per decade of increases, no doubt. Edit: To clarify, I superimposed the blue chart on Arkane's original chart here, in case the notes don't make that clear:  Arkane posted:Something like permafrost is more of a buzzword than a worry. Arkane posted:You cannot just assume the status quo when our technological horizons are being expanded at an incredibly rapid pace. There are decades before any of these adverse effects will take hold, if they ever do. The world will be UNRECOGNIZABLY and UNFATHOMABLY more advanced and better equipped to deal with problems that may arise. Arkane posted:If I had to guess, the Earth will be approximately .4 degrees warmer, and the sea levels will be 3.5 inches higher than today in 2040. Virtually indiscernible changes by the time we become a multi-planet species. Arkane posted:If its a provable, we're ~25 years from fusion energy becoming commonplace. And there are loads of examples where he has subsequently been proved wrong, where better data or analysis have come in. A summary of his beliefs, as you can see from the above, would be that all models that account for positive feedbacks are are wrong (possible negative feedbacks like the two he brought up recently are legit, though), there will be no negative effects from climate change, and that technology will save us in any event. Placid Marmot fucked around with this message at 06:18 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Alright let's slow this down: you're saying that something that was expected to happen (CO2 accelerating) makes something that was not expected to happen (Earth greening very quickly) irrelevant? Makes no sense. I mean, NCC thought it was important enough to publish, which isn't a complete validation, but it gives you at least a higher benchmark to dismiss it than that nonsense. It's evidently irrelevant since the extra leaves have had no impact on CO2, which was the entire supposedly positive thing about the extra leaves. quote:Isolating one study and calling it evidence when you have countervailing data is a joke. Isolating one study and calling it evidence when you have countervailing data? Who would periodically drop into this thread and do such a thing? quote:If we hit cool phase ENSO in 2018 and we're back below the MoE for the models, are you going to be in here posting about it? Not exactly intellectually honest taking a victory lap for the models in a year where ENSO has given an adrenaline shot to temperature. Is it physically possible for the Earth to shed enough energy for the termperature to fall back that far in 2 years? Are you banking on another Pinatubo?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:It's evidently irrelevant since the extra leaves have had no impact on CO2, which was the entire supposedly positive thing about the extra leaves. It likely has/had an impact on CO2, but perhaps too small to notice in the near-term. Which is what I said when I talked about the paper and also, you know, one of the main takeaways of the paper. A few trees growing isn't going to halt CO2 increases, nor was that ever implied lol. Placid Marmot posted:Is it physically possible for the Earth to shed enough energy for the termperature to fall back that far in 2 years? Are you banking on another Pinatubo? Might be probable. Look at 1999's monthlies compared to the monster 97-98 El Nino. Placid Marmot posted:I just looked at the old thread (so you don't have to) and I found some gems. ??? I often just post off the top of my head, so apologies if I was slightly off in C/decade when I made a post. Not like it matters that much, and it's not like I'm trying to hide information. I mean if it's .15 and I post .14 or .14 and I posted .15, it's kinda beside the point in terms of the larger argument. quote:Edit: To clarify, I superimposed the blue chart on Arkane's original chart here, in case the notes don't make that clear: Looks like you got some work to do on your 37 month smoothing at the end points bruh. And we're also not at 2018 yet, but cherry pickers gonna cherry pick I guess. Their model could still be correct. Or maybe it won't be correct. quote:And there are loads of examples where he has subsequently been proved wrong, where better data or analysis have come in. Yeah? Arkane fucked around with this message at 06:53 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Looks like you got some work to do on your 37 month smoothing at the end points bruh. The left end is cut off and the right end obviously isn't smoothed because we can't see 37 months of future data. Edit: that should be 18 months of future data, actually, since it takes 18 before and 18 after the last month on the moving average line to make a 37 month average. Same edit: For my own amusement, I made a smoothed line from 37 months down to 1 in even increments, using all available data (the thin red line). If the line is smoothed to a 19 month average or lower, it's above the green line, and at 4 months and lower it's above the thick red line. This is not very scientific - there should be increasing error bars toward the right, and probably you shouldn't smooth down to one month anyway, perhaps. 
Placid Marmot fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
http://news.mit.edu/2016/hot-new-solar-cell-0523 Here's a handy use for carbon nanotubes: a new high-efficiency solar cell. Since we've already got the ability to make the nanotubes out of airborne CO2, this could address two problems simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Lets take a break from the endless Arkane roundabout to check some of the latest news of government's taking Climate Change very seriously. And by very seriously I mean having any references to their ongoing gigantic coral bleaching problem being stripped from a UNESCO report because they know it will accelerate the destruction of their tourism industry.quote:Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
What is to be done in the developing world? I don't mean "why bother with things here if we can't stop everyone from burning fossil fuels." I mean how is the global community to accept that foreign nations are within their sovereign right to extract, refine, trade, and burn carbon, however they please, to the detriment to themselves and the world, for their own selfish gain? Cap and trade sounds like a good way for developed countries to invest in developing countries. But the premise assumes developing countries don't need their carbon credits as much as developed ones. Cheap energy is essential for economic growth, and some of the cheapest sources are dirty. Ideally a developing nation might only use as much cheap dirty energy as necessary for them to transition to expensive cleaner energy. But why should they? That would slow their economic growth and standard of living improvements. I feel that being antagonistic towards the developing world's use of dirty energy would be akin to kicking the ladder down after climbing it. You can say, "oh that's not really a big problem," but the developing world is growing, and their desires and consumption habits are equal to ours. Every day countless people in the developing world join the global upper class, in all ways. As an aside, I thought this was interesting, about water rights: https://vimeo.com/164671735
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Triglav posted:What is to be done in the developing world? When their living standards are directly, negatively afflicted by the results of use of cheap fossil fuels what do you do then? This is exceptionally short sighted thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:When their living standards are directly, negatively afflicted by the results of use of cheap fossil fuels what do you do then? This is exceptionally short sighted thinking. Their living standards can be absolute garbage as is without burning fossil fuels, or they can burn fossil fuels and have a more bearable existence in the time before the collapse of their society that is guaranteed by climate change that will happen regardless of whether or not their own individual country decides to stop burning fuel tomorrow. Unless Pakistan and India finally blow each other up and China does full totalitarian and kills 80% of it's population or something there's nothing anyone can do to prevent climate change anyways, so who cares?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Their living standards can be absolute garbage as is without burning fossil fuels, or they can burn fossil fuels and have a more bearable existence in the time before the collapse of their society that is guaranteed by climate change that will happen regardless of whether or not their own individual country decides to stop burning fuel tomorrow. You seem to be mistaken about a few things. First, this isn't the 1890s and we have better alternatives. Solar power is already transforming villages across the globe for example. Emissions and economic growth can be decoupled. Second, climate change isn't a problem we can just throw our hands up about, delay only makes it worse and it always can get worse. So even if other actors are increasing emissions we still need to act. Finally, even with economic growth throughout the developing world we don't need some sort of Malthusian crisis like you describe, instead we need significant but very doable actions including the developed world investing in helping uplift while maintaining low carbon footprints.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Yea, that sounds like something the developed world would do.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Triglav posted:What is to be done in the developing world? Something something nuclear something 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Yea, that sounds like something the developed world would do. The Paris agreement designated funds for sustainable development for poor countries, so if everyone sticks to the deal, then many poorer countries might be able to skip the worst polluting phases of energy development.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Triglav posted:What is to be done in the developing world? There's a lot of "what's" that can be looked into as mitigation or slight reduction for the loving the planet shall receive. I think the far more pertinent question is how to force these methods through when so much of the systems and threads of society are governed and reliant on what boils down to sheer human greed.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:When their living standards are directly, negatively afflicted by the results of use of cheap fossil fuels what do you do then? This is exceptionally short sighted thinking. What's shortsighted is to ignore the pressures governments feel to quickly improve the lives of millions to billions of people living in complete poverty and cheap energy being literally the only proven way to do so. I guess you can go to china and india and tell them how short-sighted they are being, that sounds like it will work. DesperateDan posted:There's a lot of "what's" that can be looked into as mitigation or slight reduction for the loving the planet shall receive. It's really easy to call it greed when you are a comfortable westerner in the top global income quintiles, less so when you live in rural india. e: keep in mind china's economic boom is quickly reversing, so there aint a chance in hell they have the money for clean tech. Better hope the west hands it to them cause otherwise they are going to burn a shitfuckton of coal in the next decades. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:It's really easy to call it greed when you are a comfortable westerner in the top global income quintiles, less so when you live in rural india. I disagree strongly. I think someone in rural India has far more right and natural ease in calling it excessive greed when about 80 or so people control more wealth than half the planet. They would have a strong case for calling me pretty greedy, and probably you too.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Their living standards can be absolute garbage as is without burning fossil fuels, or they can burn fossil fuels and have a more bearable existence in the time before the collapse of their society that is guaranteed by climate change that will happen regardless of whether or not their own individual country decides to stop burning fuel tomorrow. Climate changes, and it have done so throughout time. Vikings lived on Greenland, in a clinate that was a few degrees above todays average. What ever caused that temperature increase, was not taxed, and it still went away. It got cold, crops died, and they all had to move. Embrace change 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Something something nuclear something You jest, but a variety of third world shitholes are buying up Russian export reactors. Somehow the very stable and definitely not corrupt country of Nigeria isn't the first location that comes to anyone else's mind for building a fuckton of nuclear reactors.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 22:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I think most people in this thread are willing to embrace change, like say changing the global capitalist hegemony to something more willing and able to address the needs of all the world's citizens
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
rscott posted:I think most people in this thread are willing to embrace change, like say changing the global capitalist hegemony to something more willing and able to address the needs of all the world's citizens Climate Change is too important and too timely to wait for global economic revolution. We have to use our existing capitalistic systems to adapt and mitigate. And we can, as that hegemony is just as threatened by Climate Change as anything.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Climate Change is too important and too timely to wait for global economic revolution. We have to use our existing capitalistic systems to adapt and mitigate. And we can, as that hegemony is just as threatened by Climate Change as anything. One of the big problems is that there are some very wealthy and powerful people who would become less wealthy and powerful if the changes were made. For better or for worse there are also a poo poo load of people thinking "meh whatever, I'll be OK so I don't care." It can be very hard to get somebody over here to care about millions of people starving due to crop failures over there.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:What's shortsighted is to ignore the pressures governments feel to quickly improve the lives of millions to billions of people living in complete poverty and cheap energy being literally the only proven way to do so. Yeah, and what are you going to do for those people in southern Asia that you care oh so much about when the ground literally disappears from beneath their feet? Or when droughts worsen throughout the world, or when fisheries collapse utterly, or when increasingly large hurricanes gouge out the coastlines? At this point the large scale use of fossil fuels is more akin to somebody popping amphetamines so that they can bulldoze their way through the work week, it might be effective for a while but it is killing you in the long term. In any event the whole cheapest, quickest solution argument is rapidly being undermined as renewable get cheaper and nuclear power programs are being pursued in the third world. There can be no future with fossil fuels, and people are rapidly wising up to this.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 01:02
|
|