Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Global Warming] : Where will YOU be when we break the planet?

1235713

Posts

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The mean temperature of the Earth as a whole is increasing.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I say keep shoveling money and resources into Fusion power. The return on investment would be astronomical and well worth it.

    Um we actually have shoveled a ton of money and resources into Fusion already. From here:
    A cursory investigation reveals that the U.S. spends approximately $450M per year on the NIF, and chips in about $32M per year to ITER (though expected to escalate to about $350M/year during the construction phase from 2014–2016). Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy Hub for Batteries and Energy Storage plans to operate at $24M per year, with a similar expenditure in Fuels from Sunlight. It’s about as I thought.

    And even so, it's unlikely that we'll ever see any practical benefits from fusion before the serious effects of climate change start kicking in. I mean, if we had gone full-on fusion starting in 1940 maybe it would have worked, but it's too late for that now.

    NIF is a weapons research platform which assosciates itself with fusion to get more tax dollars. It's nothing to do with fusion power and everything to do with detailed simulations of whether nuclear bombs which haven't been tested in 30 years will detonate if we fire them. ITER is a fusion research project, but we should be funding it at 10 times the total global level to get some real results. Test tokomaks have returned Q values greater than 1 (more energy out than energy in) in short bursts and if we pushed really hard we could get there soon enough.
    I'm sure they do a lot of weapons research as well, but it's not like they totally ignore fusion power research either. I'm just really skeptical that "if we pushed really hard we could get there soon enough". Even if we do figure out how to get sustained Q > 1 it's not like that instantly solves our energy problems- you still have to make the plants cheap enough to build on a large scale, and then figure out a way to use that electricity to replace all our current use of fossil fuels.

    I mean, sure, let's keep up the fusion research, but let's not count on it being our salvation either.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    Dudes and dudettes, just go with Climate Change, it's less likely to lead to "What about the snow? Herp Derp" and a more accurate term for what we're seeing in the big wide world.

    In fact, Ender, could we get a thread title change to reflect that?

    What makes me mad is that "Global Warming" is actually pretty accurate for what we are seeing...at the large scale level of the entire Earth.

    It is just that global climate (which is warming), is different than regional climate (which can undergo different changes based on the overall warming trend), which is different from local climate, which is different from weather patterns....

    "Climate Change" is perhaps a more inclusive and applicable term for the lay audience, but that doesn't mean "Global Warming" is an innacurate term...

    I hate the over-politicialization of science :(

    No, I agree completely, but Climate Change is an easier sell. The idea is to start fixing things, not win Jeopardy tournies, right?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    Dudes and dudettes, just go with Climate Change, it's less likely to lead to "What about the snow? Herp Derp" and a more accurate term for what we're seeing in the big wide world.

    In fact, Ender, could we get a thread title change to reflect that?

    What makes me mad is that "Global Warming" is actually pretty accurate for what we are seeing...at the large scale level of the entire Earth.

    It is just that global climate (which is warming), is different than regional climate (which can undergo different changes based on the overall warming trend), which is different from local climate, which is different from weather patterns....

    "Climate Change" is perhaps a more inclusive and applicable term for the lay audience, but that doesn't mean "Global Warming" is an innacurate term...

    I hate the over-politicialization of science :(

    No, I agree completely, but Climate Change is an easier sell. The idea is to start fixing things, not win Jeopardy tournies, right?

    Yea, I am not disagreeing with you. I just hate that we have to change terms because people started getting reactionarially political.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    Also Feral thanks to the link to the dude from Scripps

    <3 Scripps scientists

    Yeah, I was actually looking on Scripps for, like, a PDF or an article or something that describes the drop in O2, and I couldn't find one, and I was just like, "eh, meh, whatevs, I'll just link their main O2 dude"

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Dudes and dudettes, just go with Climate Change, it's less likely to lead to "What about the snow? Herp Derp" and a more accurate term for what we're seeing in the big wide world.

    In fact, Ender, could we get a thread title change to reflect that?

    What makes me mad is that "Global Warming" is actually pretty accurate for what we are seeing...at the large scale level of the entire Earth.

    It is just that global climate (which is warming), is different than regional climate (which can undergo different changes based on the overall warming trend), which is different from local climate, which is different from weather patterns....

    "Climate Change" is perhaps a more inclusive and applicable term for the lay audience, but that doesn't mean "Global Warming" is an innacurate term...

    I hate the over-politicialization of science :(

    No, I agree completely, but Climate Change is an easier sell. The idea is to start fixing things, not win Jeopardy tournies, right?

    Yea, I am not disagreeing with you. I just hate that we have to change terms because people started getting reactionarially political.

    Me too.

    The only thing we can hope is that as time goes on people stop being so anti-science.

    Like, when I was in high school I had a hard time understanding how global warming could lead to harsher winters, but once you can leap over that little hurdle there shouldn't be a problem.

    A good way to go about it might be presenting the arguments as "The Effect of Global Warming on Climate Change" which is a completely accurate way to frame it, and might direct people toward understanding how rising global temperatures can lead to harsher winters.

    But, I'm not a scientist so it is perhaps a bit easier to compromise on this one for me.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The mean temperature of the Earth as a whole is increasing.

    People don't give a shit: Winter still exists so Global Warming is a lie, herpaderp. Hense Global Climate Change.

    steam_sig.png
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Dudes and dudettes, just go with Climate Change, it's less likely to lead to "What about the snow? Herp Derp" and a more accurate term for what we're seeing in the big wide world.

    In fact, Ender, could we get a thread title change to reflect that?

    What makes me mad is that "Global Warming" is actually pretty accurate for what we are seeing...at the large scale level of the entire Earth.

    It is just that global climate (which is warming), is different than regional climate (which can undergo different changes based on the overall warming trend), which is different from local climate, which is different from weather patterns....

    "Climate Change" is perhaps a more inclusive and applicable term for the lay audience, but that doesn't mean "Global Warming" is an innacurate term...

    I hate the over-politicialization of science :(

    No, I agree completely, but Climate Change is an easier sell. The idea is to start fixing things, not win Jeopardy tournies, right?

    Yea, I am not disagreeing with you. I just hate that we have to change terms because people started getting reactionarially political.

    Me too.

    The only thing we can hope is that as time goes on people stop being so anti-science.

    Like, when I was in high school I had a hard time understanding how global warming could lead to harsher winters, but once you can leap over that little hurdle there shouldn't be a problem.

    A good way to go about it might be presenting the arguments as "The Effect of Global Warming on Climate Change" which is a completely accurate way to frame it, and might direct people toward understanding how rising global temperatures can lead to harsher winters.

    But, I'm not a scientist so it is perhaps a bit easier to compromise on this one for me.

    See, the thing is, I totally prefer that extended version...but that doesn't make for effective soundbites, and thus of course it gets truncated to one or the other of those buzzwords.

    The current anti-science climate (heh) is pretty interesting as well, but I think it both needs its own thread and also has been done to death.

    Maybe not though!

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    The mean temperature of the Earth might be a bit misleading as well, what season and does it apply to the earth overall over the course of the year or only in the warm months?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    The mean temperature of the Earth might be a bit misleading as well, what season and does it apply to the earth overall over the course of the year or only in the warm months?

    Over the whole year. Since like 1900. The global average temperature of the planet has gone up.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • elkataselkatas Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Well, you can't deny global warming, but the topic is far more complex than any scientist or any of us really comprehends. I personally believe that the actual truth is between the extreme views we know today, and it won't be the doomsday scenario envisioned by many. I think mostly this way because science is progressing at crazy pace, and it is only going to get faster and faster as time goes by. Still, it doesn't mean that there won't be any collateral damage because of global warming, and those changes are bound to sting quite a bit.

    elkatas on
    Hypnotically inclined.
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    elkatas wrote: »
    Well, you can't deny global warming, but the topic is far more complex than any scientist or any of us really comprehends. I personally believe that the actual truth is between the extreme views we know today, and it won't be the doomsday scenario envisioned by many. I think mostly this way because science is progressing at crazy pace, and it is only going to get faster and faster as time goes by. Still, it doesn't mean that there won't be any collateral damage because of global warming, and those changes are bound to sting quite a bit.

    Of course, we need computers to maintain that kind of development.

    And one flood in Thailand wiped out about 75% of hard drive manufacturing.

    So... we're kind of fucked.

  • elkataselkatas Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Of course, we need computers to maintain that kind of development.

    And one flood in Thailand wiped out about 75% of hard drive manufacturing.

    So... we're kind of fucked.

    I wouldn't be worried about hard drives, to be honest. Energy is far more bigger challenge.

    Hypnotically inclined.
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    Coincidentally enough, I saw this on my Google News feed:
    http://wtvr.com/2012/04/09/march-cranked-up-the-heat-and-the-records/

    steam_sig.png
    NNID - bejamus | ESO - (at)guinneapig
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I'm a proponent of the school that doesn't view emission reduction as the only answer. Or, to state it strongly, any conceiveably achieveable plan of emission reduction, no matter how drastic, isn't likely to solve this problem much, so we need to shut up about emission reduction and look for a more aggressive solution. Like comperhensive alternative energy, or even more aggressive, like engineering counterbalances. Purposefully emitting things into the atmosphere that will have the opposite effect of carbon.

    Anyone who views the problem and solution in terms of blame and sacrifice, which is pretty much every political voice on the matter, needs to be ignored. I want to hear more from those who have actual innovative solutions.

    If and when we do royally fuck ourselves into a desert, I think then we can look back and place blame, and most of it IMO will be on the heads of those, Gore included, who insisted on preaching a moral/spiritual/quasi-religious/misanthropic slant... who like most religious nuts, steadfastly denied that we could achieve salvation except through sacrifice and penance for our sins. We need to stop thinking that way, because we never solve problems that way.

    We solve problems through innovation and engineering. Make an electric car that everyone wants (we're almost there). Replace coal with nuclear. Invent nanobots that eat atmoshperic carbon and shit nitrogen or something. Stop talking about how I have to do less and be less and accept less and use less and spend more for less... that leads nowhere.

    Yar on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    So, perfect being the enemy of good.

    Sounds like a plan!

  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Wouldn't their large populations and smaller life cycle pretty much allow for them to adapt quickly to changes in the environment?

    Not if it kills them all off first.

    Ignorant question. What happened to them the last time we had a 2c uptick in the global mean temp?

    From what I recall, large scale extinction events followed by a change in mean O2 concentration in the atmosphere?

    Rooting around in my head here for old info because I don't keep up with this stuff, but didn't we have a significant warming period in the 1400s?

    The medieval warm period was a) less than half the temperature change we're seeing right now, b) seems more significant due to the little ice age that followed it when it was really kind of avergae, and c) was eased into over a period of some four hundred years.

    It is not comparable to current climate change trends.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    Yar, I really hate that school of thought, to be honest.

    Additionally, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. While we have essentially "missed the boat" in terms of cutting down emissions to reduce climate impact from said emissions, the takeaway shouldn't be "welp, guess we fucked that up! Who cares at this point!"

    An analogy that comes to mind is to compare the earth's climate at this point to the lungs of a chronic smoker. We essentially are past the point where quitting "smoking" won't help the damage we have done to our lungs, and we probably have cancer....but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop smoking.

    This was a kind of tortured analogy, but to continue it- drastic restructuration of energy policy combined with bio/geo/mechanical engineering solutions are certainly how we fix the mess we are in now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the actual problem harder on ourselves.

    We do solve problems through engineering and innovation, this is true! But we are also trying to play damage control at the same time, so we should also aggressively be pursuing emission reduction!

    Turns out emission reduction is also an innovative solution, by the definition of "innovative".

    That is, trying not to emit so much carbon/other greenhouse gases/pollutants is not really the de-facto standard yet, and thus it compromises an innovative solution.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    I also hate the idea that God 'wouldn't allow us' to ruin the Earth. He sure didn't stop Adam and Eve from eating a piece of fruit, now did he?

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    I'm a proponent of the school that doesn't view emission reduction as the only answer. Or, to state it strongly, any conceiveably achieveable plan of emission reduction, no matter how drastic, isn't likely to solve this problem much, so we need to shut up about emission reduction and look for a more aggressive solution. Like comperhensive alternative energy, or even more aggressive, like engineering counterbalances. Purposefully emitting things into the atmosphere that will have the opposite effect of carbon.

    Anyone who views the problem and solution in terms of blame and sacrifice, which is pretty much every political voice on the matter, needs to be ignored. I want to hear more from those who have actual innovative solutions.

    If and when we do royally fuck ourselves into a desert, I think then we can look back and place blame, and most of it IMO will be on the heads of those, Gore included, who insisted on preaching a moral/spiritual/quasi-religious/misanthropic slant... who like most religious nuts, steadfastly denied that we could achieve salvation except through sacrifice and penance for our sins. We need to stop thinking that way, because we never solve problems that way.

    We solve problems through innovation and engineering. Make an electric car that everyone wants (we're almost there). Replace coal with nuclear. Invent nanobots that eat atmoshperic carbon and shit nitrogen or something. Stop talking about how I have to do less and be less and accept less and use less and spend more for less... that leads nowhere.
    So, you're taking it on faith that we will definitely develop technology that allows us to continue our current levels of consumption with no downsides? And you're also willing to bet the future of the planet that it will arrive in the next 20-30 years, before carbon levels reach the point of being catastrophic?

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    I'm a proponent of the school that doesn't view emission reduction as the only answer. Or, to state it strongly, any conceiveably achieveable plan of emission reduction, no matter how drastic, isn't likely to solve this problem much, so we need to shut up about emission reduction and look for a more aggressive solution. Like comperhensive alternative energy, or even more aggressive, like engineering counterbalances. Purposefully emitting things into the atmosphere that will have the opposite effect of carbon.

    Anyone who views the problem and solution in terms of blame and sacrifice, which is pretty much every political voice on the matter, needs to be ignored. I want to hear more from those who have actual innovative solutions.

    If and when we do royally fuck ourselves into a desert, I think then we can look back and place blame, and most of it IMO will be on the heads of those, Gore included, who insisted on preaching a moral/spiritual/quasi-religious/misanthropic slant... who like most religious nuts, steadfastly denied that we could achieve salvation except through sacrifice and penance for our sins. We need to stop thinking that way, because we never solve problems that way.

    We solve problems through innovation and engineering. Make an electric car that everyone wants (we're almost there). Replace coal with nuclear. Invent nanobots that eat atmoshperic carbon and shit nitrogen or something. Stop talking about how I have to do less and be less and accept less and use less and spend more for less... that leads nowhere.

    To paraphrase George Carlin:
    Doesn't it seem wrong to use technology to fix the problems that technology introduced?

    steam_sig.png
    NNID - bejamus | ESO - (at)guinneapig
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Spoiler:
    PineIslandGlacier-nasa1.jpg

    ACSIS on
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    I'm a proponent of the school that doesn't view emission reduction as the only answer. Or, to state it strongly, any conceiveably achieveable plan of emission reduction, no matter how drastic, isn't likely to solve this problem much, so we need to shut up about emission reduction and look for a more aggressive solution. Like comperhensive alternative energy, or even more aggressive, like engineering counterbalances. Purposefully emitting things into the atmosphere that will have the opposite effect of carbon.

    Anyone who views the problem and solution in terms of blame and sacrifice, which is pretty much every political voice on the matter, needs to be ignored. I want to hear more from those who have actual innovative solutions.

    If and when we do royally fuck ourselves into a desert, I think then we can look back and place blame, and most of it IMO will be on the heads of those, Gore included, who insisted on preaching a moral/spiritual/quasi-religious/misanthropic slant... who like most religious nuts, steadfastly denied that we could achieve salvation except through sacrifice and penance for our sins. We need to stop thinking that way, because we never solve problems that way.

    We solve problems through innovation and engineering. Make an electric car that everyone wants (we're almost there). Replace coal with nuclear. Invent nanobots that eat atmoshperic carbon and shit nitrogen or something. Stop talking about how I have to do less and be less and accept less and use less and spend more for less... that leads nowhere.

    To paraphrase George Carlin:
    Doesn't it seem wrong to use technology to fix the problems that technology introduced?

    No, no it doesn't, actually.

    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Stream - Offline
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Technology is probably going to be the thing that fixes this...

    Like, we can all cut down on emissions, sure, but we do need to research into stuff as well.

    Returning to the age of the Amish is a super stupid idea on how to solve climate change.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Well, you can't deny global warming, but the topic is far more complex than any scientist or any of us really comprehends. I personally believe that the actual truth is between the extreme views we know today, and it won't be the doomsday scenario envisioned by many. I think mostly this way because science is progressing at crazy pace, and it is only going to get faster and faster as time goes by. Still, it doesn't mean that there won't be any collateral damage because of global warming, and those changes are bound to sting quite a bit.

    -.-

    The problem is complex, but it is actually fairly well understood because it's impact is being studied by nearly every large research body on the planet. Just about every single branch of science intersects with it.

    The typical 'well one side says it's fake, the other says it's a horrifying problem, so I want to sit in the middle!' attitude that humans tend to have is not the appropriate approach to an issue. Go and read the literature, both in popular science magazines & actual published papers, and make an informed opinion based on what the body of evidence is.
    Dudes and dudettes, just go with Climate Change, it's less likely to lead to "What about the snow? Herp Derp" and a more accurate term for what we're seeing in the big wide world.

    In fact, Ender, could we get a thread title change to reflect that?

    I don't sugar-coat uncomfortable issues in order to placate people that are ignorant and/or bigoted.

    Most of the literature I've read refers to the problem as 'global warming'; only the popular press tends to use the term 'climate change', and most of the time it's because they feel that the actual data is too 'extreme' a view. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense: satellites & oceanic temperature buoys don't have political inclinations.

    Climate change is also not 'more accurate' than global warming, because the problem is a warming trend caused by CO2 concentration. If anything, the term 'climate change' makes the issue murky.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't see how it makes it murkier, since it's a more accurate representation of global warming's effects.

    But it's fine, that question just rose up out of a discussion about ways to sell it to voters. And if you think it's getting solved without that, well, good luck with that.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    I'm a proponent of the school that doesn't view emission reduction as the only answer. Or, to state it strongly, any conceiveably achieveable plan of emission reduction, no matter how drastic, isn't likely to solve this problem much, so we need to shut up about emission reduction and look for a more aggressive solution. Like comperhensive alternative energy, or even more aggressive, like engineering counterbalances. Purposefully emitting things into the atmosphere that will have the opposite effect of carbon.

    Anyone who views the problem and solution in terms of blame and sacrifice, which is pretty much every political voice on the matter, needs to be ignored. I want to hear more from those who have actual innovative solutions.

    If and when we do royally fuck ourselves into a desert, I think then we can look back and place blame, and most of it IMO will be on the heads of those, Gore included, who insisted on preaching a moral/spiritual/quasi-religious/misanthropic slant... who like most religious nuts, steadfastly denied that we could achieve salvation except through sacrifice and penance for our sins. We need to stop thinking that way, because we never solve problems that way.

    We solve problems through innovation and engineering. Make an electric car that everyone wants (we're almost there). Replace coal with nuclear. Invent nanobots that eat atmoshperic carbon and shit nitrogen or something. Stop talking about how I have to do less and be less and accept less and use less and spend more for less... that leads nowhere.

    To paraphrase George Carlin:
    Doesn't it seem wrong to use technology to fix the problems that technology introduced?

    Certainly doesn't.

    The thing is, the "let's just do everything less" message doesn't fly for all the countries that aren't western. It's barely gotten any real popularity in the west itself. We can't expect China or India to just not get the stuff we got because we say so. A focus on us simply reducing emissions isn't going to work, because the rest of the world isn't going to until they have a good reason themselves. And "oh our poor planet" isn't a good enough reason yet for them.

    I mean, we'll reduce emissions anyway by replacing energy-sources and finding more efficient technologies. It isn't like it won't happen, we should just focus on being more awesome instead of less awesome.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I don't see how it makes it murkier, since it's a more accurate representation of global warming's effects.

    But it's fine, that question just rose up out of a discussion about ways to sell it to voters. And if you think it's getting solved without that, well, good luck with that.

    Here's the problem with this idea:

    Suppose you really did manage to convince the American public of the gravity of the situation, and they voted-in progressive politicians who laid-out legislation in order to curb a disaster.

    We will still be in enormous trouble, because we still also need China, India, Canada, Mexico & Russia, at the very least, to get on board.
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

    Here: if you can find 3 Nature articles that use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming', either in the heading or throughout the body of the paper, I will change the thread title.

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I don't see how it makes it murkier, since it's a more accurate representation of global warming's effects.

    But it's fine, that question just rose up out of a discussion about ways to sell it to voters. And if you think it's getting solved without that, well, good luck with that.

    Here's the problem with this idea:

    Suppose you really did manage to convince the American public of the gravity of the situation, and they voted-in progressive politicians who laid-out legislation in order to curb a disaster.

    We will still be in enormous trouble, because we still also need China, India, Canada, Mexico & Russia, at the very least, to get on board.
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

    Here: if you can find 3 Nature articles that use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming', either in the heading or throughout the body of the paper, I will change the title thread.

    So your suggestion is to just... what? Do nothing? Get together and build an ark and wait for the flood?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I say keep shoveling money and resources into Fusion power. The return on investment would be astronomical and well worth it.

    Um we actually have shoveled a ton of money and resources into Fusion already. From here:
    A cursory investigation reveals that the U.S. spends approximately $450M per year on the NIF, and chips in about $32M per year to ITER (though expected to escalate to about $350M/year during the construction phase from 2014–2016). Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy Hub for Batteries and Energy Storage plans to operate at $24M per year, with a similar expenditure in Fuels from Sunlight. It’s about as I thought.

    And even so, it's unlikely that we'll ever see any practical benefits from fusion before the serious effects of climate change start kicking in. I mean, if we had gone full-on fusion starting in 1940 maybe it would have worked, but it's too late for that now.

    NIF is a weapons research platform which assosciates itself with fusion to get more tax dollars. It's nothing to do with fusion power and everything to do with detailed simulations of whether nuclear bombs which haven't been tested in 30 years will detonate if we fire them. ITER is a fusion research project, but we should be funding it at 10 times the total global level to get some real results. Test tokomaks have returned Q values greater than 1 (more energy out than energy in) in short bursts and if we pushed really hard we could get there soon enough.
    I'm sure they do a lot of weapons research as well, but it's not like they totally ignore fusion power research either. I'm just really skeptical that "if we pushed really hard we could get there soon enough". Even if we do figure out how to get sustained Q > 1 it's not like that instantly solves our energy problems- you still have to make the plants cheap enough to build on a large scale, and then figure out a way to use that electricity to replace all our current use of fossil fuels.

    I mean, sure, let's keep up the fusion research, but let's not count on it being our salvation either.

    Actually, if we were willing to clad the tokomaks with nuclear fuel then we could get there quite quickly. The main problem (well, the hardest problem) facing fusion right now is finding a material which stands up well to neutron bombardment, doesn't get too radioactive when you do so, transmits heat well and maintains its physical properties across a good temperature range. Uranium does that, you just get left with weopons grade plutonium at the end. Then you could probably get a continuous fusion reaction going on and you'd just need more efficient extraction techniques.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

    Here: if you can find 3 Nature articles that use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming', either in the heading or throughout the body of the paper, I will change the thread title.
    Pretty sure this site has more than 3 articles:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/index.html

    Pi-r8 on
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

    Here: if you can find 3 Nature articles that use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming', either in the heading or throughout the body of the paper, I will change the thread title.
    Pretty sure this site has more than 3 articles:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/index.html

    There's also this.

    http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-advanced=true&sp-m=0&siteCode=default&sp-q=&sp-p=all&sp-q-2=&sp-p-2=all&sp-q-3=climate+change&sp-p-3=all&sp-q-4=&sp-q-5=&sp-q-6=&sp-q-10=&sp-q-11=&sp-q-12=&sp-start-month=&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=&sp-end-year=&sp-date-range=0&sp-q-8=&sp-s=date_descending&sp-c=25

    Steam = VishnuOwnz
    Dota2 = Glitchmo
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    So your suggestion is to just... what? Do nothing? Get together and build an ark and wait for the flood?

    Informed policy makers have to be willing to say, "Sorry, but the public is just wrong. I am going to impose legislation that is not popular, for everyone's safety, because the academic community has shown me that this is a real problem."

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • NODeNODe Registered User
    The Ender wrote: »
    I don't see how it makes it murkier, since it's a more accurate representation of global warming's effects.

    But it's fine, that question just rose up out of a discussion about ways to sell it to voters. And if you think it's getting solved without that, well, good luck with that.

    Here's the problem with this idea:

    Suppose you really did manage to convince the American public of the gravity of the situation, and they voted-in progressive politicians who laid-out legislation in order to curb a disaster.

    We will still be in enormous trouble, because we still also need China, India, Canada, Mexico & Russia, at the very least, to get on board.
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

    Here: if you can find 3 Nature articles that use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming', either in the heading or throughout the body of the paper, I will change the title thread.

    So your suggestion is to just... what? Do nothing? Get together and build an ark and wait for the flood?

    That...actually is Canada's current stance. (Not the ark thing, the do nothing thing). "The BRIC isn't buying in to Kyoto? Well it's a waste of time then, we're out. FYI, if anyone needs fuel for totally unregulated industry...we left some flyers at the door."

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    So your suggestion is to just... what? Do nothing? Get together and build an ark and wait for the flood?

    Informed policy makers have to be willing to say, "Sorry, but the public is just wrong. I am going to impose legislation that is not popular, for everyone's safety, because the academic community has shown me that this is a real problem."


    And I'm sure that these informed policy makers are going to appear out of no where.

    Schrodinger's cake must be delicious.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

    Here: if you can find 3 Nature articles that use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming', either in the heading or throughout the body of the paper, I will change the thread title.
    Pretty sure this site has more than 3 articles:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/index.html

    :|

    Well, I just made a promise I can't keep. I can't make the title change while jailed. :(


    If a mod is reading this, could you change the thread title from [Global Warming] to [Climate Change]?

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    What a weird rule.

    We could batsignal it?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I don't see how it makes it murkier, since it's a more accurate representation of global warming's effects.

    But it's fine, that question just rose up out of a discussion about ways to sell it to voters. And if you think it's getting solved without that, well, good luck with that.

    Here's the problem with this idea:

    Suppose you really did manage to convince the American public of the gravity of the situation, and they voted-in progressive politicians who laid-out legislation in order to curb a disaster.

    We will still be in enormous trouble, because we still also need China, India, Canada, Mexico & Russia, at the very least, to get on board.
    I think climate change is actually more accurate, because the real problem is not the actual warming, but the changes in climate that warming will cause. I mean, 5 degrees celcius doesn't sound like much- we easily tolerate much bigger changes than that between winter and summer- but it'll trigger all kinds of nasty effects on the climate.

    Here: if you can find 3 Nature articles that use the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming', either in the heading or throughout the body of the paper, I will change the title thread.

    So your suggestion is to just... what? Do nothing? Get together and build an ark and wait for the flood?

    And, if the US did act unilaterally we would find ourselves at a GIGANTIC comparative advantage as other nations tried to continue using high energy/high pollution technology. If we had acres of solar panels, dozens of nuclear power plants, biodiesel production and so on as the price of energy skyrocketed we would retain good access to energy. If we built low impact farmland and restored rivers,deltas and marshlands then temperature change and subsequent stress on local species would be buffered and productivity would remain higher. If we lowered water use in our cities and industry then lower rainfall would not diminish our industrial and agricultural capacity so much and mass death from thirst/dirty water could be avoided. If we installed white roofs on our homes and reflected sunlight as much as possible from all non-agricultural surfaces then again we'd save energy and urban heat island effects would be diminished which would lower ambient temperatures slightly, encourage rainfall and lower water stress in cities. if we planted forest, espescially heat tolerant trees, then water retention in the soil would be improved and each drop of rain would be used more efficiently. In adition carbon would be sequestered and oxygen would be generated, buffering the CO2 increase.

    So if the US acts, and noone else does, then the US survives as do many of the species in it and the rest of the world burns. Hell, we might even be able to move fast enough to develop good enough tech to avoid the problem entirely.

    There really is no reason to not act. Yes we can't save the planet alone, but we could save ourselves. It's like saying that if a ship is sinking due to someone knocking holes in the side you shouldn't put on a life vest. Yes, being in the water is going to suck and you'll be cold and wet, but you'll definately die if you do nothing.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    So your suggestion is to just... what? Do nothing? Get together and build an ark and wait for the flood?

    Informed policy makers have to be willing to say, "Sorry, but the public is just wrong. I am going to impose legislation that is not popular, for everyone's safety, because the academic community has shown me that this is a real problem."


    And I'm sure that these informed policy makers are going to appear out of no where.

    Schrodinger's cake must be delicious.

    Policy makers are currently informed. Your current president, for example, knows about the problem but doesn't want to appear 'extremist' or 'alarmist', so he hasn't proposed any large changes. Your body of senators are mostly well-informed, but about half of them don't give a shit about the future because, well, they'll be dead soon enough anyway.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
Sign In or Register to comment.