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 know which one I prefer.

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.

Strudel Man posted:

Hah, are you joking?

Release of methane stored in the Arctic permafrost is dangerous because methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, not because we're going to suddenly have a methane-dominant atmosphere.

It isn't even a toxic gas, if that's what you're thinking. Biologically speaking, we could tolerate huge amounts of it just fine, as long as there was still sufficient oxygen in the air.

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.
[...]
e. To be more specific, the hydrostatic pressure that fracking puts on the rock around the pipe isn't great enough to cause leakage into the groundwater and aquifers that people are saying are getting contaminated. It simply doesn't work that way. You're fracking rock in the first place because it has poor permiability and it's not like areas that get fracked have incredibly nonuniform deposition with surrounding high-permeability rock that would allow contamination in the first place. If it did, you wouldn't need to frack it.

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:

quote:

Natural breakdown products of organic contaminants like BTEX and glycols include acetate and benzoic acid; these breakdown products are more enriched in the
shallower of the two monitoring wells, suggesting upward/lateral migration with natural degradation and accumulation of daughter products (Corseuil et al. 2011, Caldwell and Suflita 2000, Dwyer and Tiedje 1983).
[...]
In addition, a condensate origin for BTEX compounds in ground water is doubtful because dissolved gas compositions and concentrations are similar between the two deep monitoring wells and therefore would yield similar liquid condensates, yet the compositions and concentrations of organic compounds detected in these wells are quite different (Figure 17) further suggesting a deep source of BTEX in MW02.
[...]
Although contamination was detected in some domestic wells proximal to the deep monitoring wells, underscoring potential future risk, the existing data at this time do not establish a definitive link between deep and shallow contamination of the aquifer.

quote:

In fact, the EPA also points out what I say (note that this explanation was provided by the EPA):

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.

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:

quote:

"the existing data at this time do not establish a definitive link between deep and shallow contamination of the aquifer."
This line backs up my statements regarding contamination being from disposal and not deep fracturing. Hope that helps.

WAFFLEHOUND posted:

There are two different stages of contamination being discussed. I repeatedly have tried to distinguish them,

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!"

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.

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.

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.

WAFFLEHOUND posted:

Well, there's one that exists and one that doesn't. Deep groundwater contamination from fracking being the latter kind of contamination.

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.

quote:

I have been.

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.

McDowell posted:

The 21st is gonna be a 3000 ft drop cutting edge steel coaster with triple inverted loops, water effects, and magnetic acceleration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hell if I was an artist I would have long since painted some kind of diptych portraying coal miners as in the thrall of Satan while windmills and solar panels bask in the shimmering glory of the Almighty above ground.

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.

El Grillo posted:

http://energyfromthorium.com/
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html (ignore the bit about generating fuels, the rest is pretty good though nowhere near as good as the full explanation:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

I'm very interested in talking to someone (anyone, in this thread or anywhere else) who can really make a good critique of the LFTR concept and design. At the moment all the evidence seems to point to it being an incredible technology which could save the world, but I am naturally sceptical. This is balanced of course by the fact that China's started investing in LFTR development.

Seriously, anyone who can even just play devil's advocate on this subject, it would be really great, as I'm hoping to start giving talks about it around my uni in a few months.

McDowell posted:

We're gonna make great jobs for our kids picking through mountains of e-Waste!

Pipe Dreamer posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html


Is this true?

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?

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.

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.

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"?

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?

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?

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.

jrodefeld posted:

I want you to defend that statement with facts. How can war, inherently a destructive and murderous activity, lead to economic prosperity?

Arkane posted:

Hence the reason that I have scoffed at some of the apocalypse planning in this thread.

Arkane posted:

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.

Arkane posted:

Actually, I'll limit it down even further:

"Cannot be considered representative of global climate changes"
versus
"Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years"

These sentences contradict each other.

And the idea that you could piggyback observations onto proxies (the infamous "trick" of Climategate fame) and equate them with each other - as the blogger quoted by rivetz has done - is unacceptable. Just nonsense and non-science.

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).

Arkane posted:

How does this make sense as a response to my question?

Arkane posted:

Yeah, I agree with Bjorn Lomborg virtually 100% in principle on climate policies as they relate the developing world.

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.

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.

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."
[...]
"Looking at all the comments by the reviewer they suggested how the paper might be rewritten in the future to make it a solid contribution to science. That's not suppressing a dissenting view, it's what scientists call peer review."

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.