Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

[Climate Change] : Paris Agreement Signed

1246714

Posts

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    By the way, I refuse to listen to anything Al Gore says. He's a hypocrite of the first order, and his movie was terrible pastiche shot through with inaccuracies.

    I still think we should end fossil fuel use altogether. Also we should ban the gas-powered push lawnmower, and the gas-powered leaf blower.

    But you get that there are people who think your first sentence is a sound reason to not follow your second sentence. That's what I'm talking about.

    Yes, and that's why the one needs to be decoupled from the other, ASAP. Defending Al Gore is hopeless and drives away the audience you want. Fuck Al Gore, is what I'm saying. Do you really want to stand on principle when your entire argument is that the fate of the world is literally hanging in the balance?

    I imagine that the left's response to bashing Al Gore should be "sure, whatever you want to say. I don't care what you think about him, but don't you agree that we should take care of our planet even if it's not going to burn to a crisp in 20 years?"

    The linchpin in this decoupled argument is a plan that doesn't mangle modern society or roll us back to the stone age. When environmentalists can't agree on nuclear power, I don't see any sort of a comprehensive plan for how we can continue to live like we do and still stop climate change. Most anti-AGW people on the right believe that climate change is a stalking horse for a bunch of liberal policies they don't want. Decouple them, and watch support shoot through the roof.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    By the way, I refuse to listen to anything Al Gore says. He's a hypocrite of the first order, and his movie was terrible pastiche shot through with inaccuracies.

    I still think we should end fossil fuel use altogether. Also we should ban the gas-powered push lawnmower, and the gas-powered leaf blower.

    Honestly? This is a statement that is completely useless. You claim on one hand that you hate the narrative and the divide, and then go on to get your final dig in. "If we're all going to burn and 70% of species will go extinct and calamity is imminent, don't you think it's time to stow the superior attitude and try to find common cause with the people you will need to have onside to save the earth"

    A few posts later: "But just so we are clear, Al Gore is a hypocrite."

    To get back on topic, if people are interested I have a lovely paper that terrified the goddam hell out of me in regards to insects and climate change.

    The gist of it is summarized in two parts
    An expansion in climatically suitable habitat for the mountain pine beetle, including reduced minimum winter temperature, increased summer temperatures and reduced summer precipitation, during recent decades has facilitated expansion of the outbreak northward and into higher elevation forests

    The result of this climate shift is that since 2003, forests in western Canada have become a carbon source instead of a carbon sink, due both to beetles destroying the trees where carbon was sequestered, as well as the dead wood providing fodder for forest fires.
    This impact converted the forest from a small net carbon sink to a large net carbon source both during and immediately after the outbreak.

    Both quotes are from Kurz et al 2008. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to
    climate change.
    Nature Letters

    Camille Parmesean also published a review in 2006 that covered all the range shifts in a staggering amount of taxa as a result of climate change.

    Bottom line? Ecologists around the world are really scared of this. Many people don't realize, but a change in even a few degrees of temperature can drastically change life histories of organisms, especially poikilotherms (organisms that can't regulate their own temperature.) As temperature increases, insects develop faster, and this can lead to what was once a univoltine (one generation per year) pest insect becoming multivoltine (multiple generations per year). We saw this with the mountain pine beetle in Canada- winter temperatures didn't drop far enough to kill off the adults as they used to, and thus we got overlapping generations, which ruined large swathes of Canadian forest.

    As an addendum to this post, when scientists talk about climate change, we all are working with the assumption that we are discussing anthropogenic climate changes.

    In short, we are going to fuck the hell out of a lot of biodiversity, especially in the ocean and among invertebrate species, in the next half century. In a few years I expect us to see crazy pest outbreaks. Who knows, maybe the glacier will melt and the locusts will come back.

    TL;DR- insect species will undergo drastic changes in ecology, and this will definitely impact us.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    Then what we need to do is remind everyone that it doesn't matter. We can't pull stewardship of the environment out of the mass of unpalatable retrograde leftwing self-flagellation fast enough! But on the one hand we have the left wing refusing to decouple climate change from naturalist anti-human stupidity, OWS anti-corporate rage, and borderline paranoia, and on the other we have a small but vocal subset of the right wing unwilling to go anywhere near the left but very willing to make hay while the sun shines using the fact that Baptists are unwelcome in the environmentalist tent but Earth First is pretty much OK.

    Long sentence is long.

    I agree with the bolded one. hundred. percent. and it's a pet peeve of mine

    The left commonly has a very rational viewpoint that they take one step too far, or two or three sometimes. Now I can't put the blame on liberals for lack of action on climate change, I put that entirely on ridiculously short sighted businesses aggressively lobbying against a new clean air act (which created jobs, I'd like to point out) and the individuals being lobbied. You will never, ever catch me defending the hemp wearing ones though, it's their fucking fault we're in this mess.

    Sure they didn't know about global warming, but the anti-nuclear hippy movement either didn't think or assumed we'd stop using electricity altogether instead of running everything on coal for the forseeable future. We could be a 40-50% nuclear country right now.

    That said none of it excuses Fox News or Republican policians, they are educated individuals they should know better. Rather than fighting cap and trade they should take the opportunity to help draft something that isn't unduly burdensome to business but at the same time actually makes changes. Yes electricity and gas will get more expensive for Americans if we do something about it, but it's much cheaper than the externalities. The current attitude of "fuck doing anything beneficial for the nation because Obama will get credit" is hair pulling.

    override367 on
  • MaratastikMaratastik Just call me Mara, please! Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    By the way, I refuse to listen to anything Al Gore says. He's a hypocrite of the first order, and his movie was terrible pastiche shot through with inaccuracies.

    I still think we should end fossil fuel use altogether. Also we should ban the gas-powered push lawnmower, and the gas-powered leaf blower.

    Honestly? This is a statement that is completely useless. You claim on one hand that you hate the narrative and the divide, and then go on to get your final dig in. "If we're all going to burn and 70% of species will go extinct and calamity is imminent, don't you think it's time to stow the superior attitude and try to find common cause with the people you will need to have onside to save the earth"

    A few posts later: "But just so we are clear, Al Gore is a hypocrite."

    To get back on topic, if people are interested I have a lovely paper that terrified the goddam hell out of me in regards to insects and climate change.

    The gist of it is summarized in two parts
    An expansion in climatically suitable habitat for the mountain pine beetle, including reduced minimum winter temperature, increased summer temperatures and reduced summer precipitation, during recent decades has facilitated expansion of the outbreak northward and into higher elevation forests

    The result of this climate shift is that since 2003, forests in western Canada have become a carbon source instead of a carbon sink, due both to beetles destroying the trees where carbon was sequestered, as well as the dead wood providing fodder for forest fires.
    This impact converted the forest from a small net carbon sink to a large net carbon source both during and immediately after the outbreak.

    Both quotes are from Kurz et al 2008. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to
    climate change.
    Nature Letters

    Camille Parmesean also published a review in 2006 that covered all the range shifts in a staggering amount of taxa as a result of climate change.

    Bottom line? Ecologists around the world are really scared of this. Many people don't realize, but a change in even a few degrees of temperature can drastically change life histories of organisms, especially poikilotherms (organisms that can't regulate their own temperature.) As temperature increases, insects develop faster, and this can lead to what was once a univoltine (one generation per year) pest insect becoming multivoltine (multiple generations per year). We saw this with the mountain pine beetle in Canada- winter temperatures didn't drop far enough to kill off the adults as they used to, and thus we got overlapping generations, which ruined large swathes of Canadian forest.

    As an addendum to this post, when scientists talk about climate change, we all are working with the assumption that we are discussing anthropogenic climate changes.

    In short, we are going to fuck the hell out of a lot of biodiversity, especially in the ocean and among invertebrate species, in the next half century. In a few years I expect us to see crazy pest outbreaks. Who knows, maybe the glacier will melt and the locusts will come back.

    TL;DR- insect species will undergo drastic changes in ecology, and this will definitely impact us.

    What's also terrifying about this is that the most northern forests produce a significant amount of the world's oxygen supply. If they are able to continue northward...

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    @Olorin, I don't want to think about that

    Here is something even scarier- the other significant oxygen supply comes from planktonic sources...planktonic sources that are extremely susceptible to even small fluctuations in temperatures....

  • MaratastikMaratastik Just call me Mara, please! Registered User regular
    Basically we're all going to die.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Also those planktonic producers are more susceptible to changes in pH...and decrease in pH is a direct effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 as the oceans reuptake along the diffusion gradient.

    Like, the very act of dissolving CO2 in water decreases its pH, just based on chemical laws. Also, CO2 dissolving into the oceans is something we can't stop, again based on chemical laws.

    Yay diffusion!

    :(

    Arch on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Wouldn't their large populations and smaller life cycle pretty much allow for them to adapt quickly to changes in the environment?

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    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.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    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?

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Wouldn't their large populations and smaller life cycle pretty much allow for them to adapt quickly to changes in the environment?

    From a review article:
    Temperature has a fundamental effect on biological processes simply by its influence on molecular kinetic energy (i.e., Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distribution), which determines the rate of fundamental processes such as enzyme reactions, diffusion, and membrane transport. Moderate increases in temperature increase metabolic rates, which ultimately determine life history traits, population growth, and ecosystem processes . In this regard, organisms tend to adapt to local environmental temperatures, with optimal physiological responses matching temperatures that are close to the environmental average. Organisms are able to acclimatize to a range of temperatures around these optimal values. Beyond this range, however, acclimatization fails, mortality risk increases, fitness is reduced, and populations decline or are driven to local extinction

    This is from Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno, 2010. The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems. Science

    This paragraph cites
    P. Hochachka, G. Somero, Biochemical Adaptation: Mechanism and Process in Physiological Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2002).
    M. I. O’Connoret al., Temperature control of larval dispersal and the implications for marine ecology, evolution, and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 1266 (2007).

    The second paper is the one I was specifically thinking about when I wrote my initial post, I read it when it came out a few years ago.

    In short, the answer is "yes, to a point."

    On a debate-note, I think your question is a bit disingenuous. Not only is adaptation not some magical force that fixes everything, your question ignores the implications incurred by an adaptive change in behavior or life-history, which most authors agree will happen. Just because an organism can and did adapt to changing climate conditions, that doesn't mean it won't disrupt the entire ecosystem and potentially have broad-reaching consequences.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    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?

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    At least one extinction event (the mid-early Cambrian extinction) was caused by the reverse effect I am worried about- Phytoplankton grew out of control and turned the oceans hypoxic, which killed a lot of cool species (potentialy trilobites)*

    Zhuravlev and Wood, 1996

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    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?

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I'd imagine that unless the CO2 output jumped to some crazy number, it would be too gradual to extinguish a large amount of their population. I'd imagine agriculture for sustaining food supplies would suffer far more catastrophic failures before our oxygen supply would be affected from plankton in any reasonable amount.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    That is to say I'm not really implying there won't be larger effects from that, but I don't think oxygen output from plankton is a thing to worry about so much as climate shift as a whole.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered 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?

    Not to this scale as far as I'm aware.

    Also, that was part of a natural cycle. The problem isn't the rise in CO2 itself, it's the fact that we're causing it and there's potentially no end to the uptick (until civilization becomes untenable). The world and the environment will of course survive, but it may not be a very comfortable place for us to be.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I'd imagine that unless the CO2 output jumped to some crazy number, it would be too gradual to extinguish a large amount of their population. I'd imagine agriculture for sustaining food supplies would suffer far more catastrophic failures before our oxygen supply would be affected from plankton in any reasonable amount.

    We are at that crazy number.

    Not to be a jerk, but you are handwaving away large swathes of research that all conclude that the current trend of CO2 level and temperature change is a serious threat to marine environments.

    Not only that, but marine environments are more important than you give them credit for.

    I doubt we will suffocate, but there have been extreme changes in O2 concentration over Earth's history, and every change is associated with large scale ecological change.

    Imagine if the concentration in the lowlands was similar to that in a mountain.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    I'd imagine that unless the CO2 output jumped to some crazy number, it would be too gradual to extinguish a large amount of their population. I'd imagine agriculture for sustaining food supplies would suffer far more catastrophic failures before our oxygen supply would be affected from plankton in any reasonable amount.

    We are at that crazy number.

    Not to be a jerk, but you are handwaving away large swathes of research that all conclude that the current trend of CO2 level and temperature change is a serious threat to marine environments.

    Not only that, but marine environments are more important than you give them credit for.

    I doubt we will suffocate, but there have been extreme changes in O2 concentration over Earth's history, and every change is associated with large scale ecological change.

    Imagine if the concentration in the lowlands was similar to that in a mountain.

    I don't know what you're implying with this, or even if it would be feasible. Haven't, historically, O2 levels been much higher than they are now? (like around the Dinosaur-ish eras)

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    And I'm not hand-waiving anything, I'm questioning. I could give a rats ass about trying to prove Al Gore wrong, other than the really terrible catch-phrase "Global Warming."

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    I'd imagine that unless the CO2 output jumped to some crazy number, it would be too gradual to extinguish a large amount of their population. I'd imagine agriculture for sustaining food supplies would suffer far more catastrophic failures before our oxygen supply would be affected from plankton in any reasonable amount.

    We are at that crazy number.

    Not to be a jerk, but you are handwaving away large swathes of research that all conclude that the current trend of CO2 level and temperature change is a serious threat to marine environments.

    Not only that, but marine environments are more important than you give them credit for.

    I doubt we will suffocate, but there have been extreme changes in O2 concentration over Earth's history, and every change is associated with large scale ecological change.

    Imagine if the concentration in the lowlands was similar to that in a mountain.

    I don't know what you're implying with this, or even if it would be feasible. Haven't, historically, O2 levels been much higher than they are now? (like around the Dinosaur-ish eras)

    I think longer ago than that, but we wouldn't have been able to survive then.

    It is almost like the species who are alive now have evolved to survive in the environment that they evolved around.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Which is why I'm questioning the mountain statement I don't know what that means. Are we losing O2? Is it just a climate shift as the world becomes more arid?

    I don't know, you tell me.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Which is why I'm questioning the mountain statement I don't know what that means. Are we losing O2? Is it just a climate shift as the world becomes more arid?

    I don't know, you tell me.

    The balance of the atmosphere is changing, leading to climate change. Places will become more arid, yes, and some will become more flooded. We're not looking at a Snowball or Desert Earth scenario, the climate is changing in general. I'm not a scientist so I'm not up on the particulars, but if I'm not mistaken what Arch is talking about is the fact that deforestation and a dearth of plankton could lower O2 levels which would be a problem.

    If there is a massive die off of things which produce oxygen, this will not be good for anything that's alive.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    I say keep shoveling money and resources into Fusion power. The return on investment would be astronomical and well worth it.

    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I'd imagine enough would die off where it would hit a homeostatic balance yet again, relatively quickly. Not that that is necessarily good for Humans.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I'd imagine enough would die off where it would hit a homeostatic balance yet again, relatively quickly. Not that that is necessarily good for Humans.

    Well exactly, the earth would hit a balance, but it would probably not be very good for us. Which is rather the problem I should think.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I say keep shoveling money and resources into Fusion power. The return on investment would be astronomical and well worth it.

    Yeah I can't imagine why we don't do this. If it were me I'd scrap NASA and much of the military budget and shift it to energy and econfriendly technologies, and especially to break our country's dependency on oil (self sufficiency) why wouldn't you?

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    bowen wrote: »
    Are we losing O2?

    Well, yeah, that's how CO2 is produced. Animal respiration and coal & gasoline combustion pull O2 out of the environment and bond it with carbon to make CO2.

    CO2 is then broken up back into O2 by plants and plankton and aerobic bacteria. Most of this process is performed by ocean life.

    Current data suggests that atmospheric oxygen levels have been falling. (I can't find online links to his articles, but this guy's work deals primarily with that.)

    Here's the rub: atmospheric O2 levels have been falling faster than CO2 levels have been rising. It's not merely that we're burning oxygen to create carbon dioxide. That doesn't explain the entire 'loss' of atmospheric oxygen by itself. There's also something else going on.

    One of the most likely explanations is that the ocean's ability to convert CO2 back into O2 has been injured by the loss of aerobic ocean life. Part of that loss is due to rising ocean temperatures and ocean acidity killing off plankton. Another part of that loss is due to non-CO2 manmade pollutants; oil spills and industrial pollutants and other types of runoff killing off ocean life.

    Feral on
    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.
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Interesting. The current amount of carbon we have on Earth hasn't likely increased drastically since life has existed, what sort of thing would happen? A hard push towards atmospheric conditions present with early life?

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Are we losing O2?

    Well, yeah, that's how CO2 is produced. Animal respiration and coal & gasoline combustion pull O2 out of the environment and bond it with carbon to make CO2.

    CO2 is then broken up back into O2 by plants and plankton and aerobic bacteria. Most of this process is performed by ocean life.

    Current data suggests that atmospheric oxygen levels have been falling. (I can't find online links to his articles, but this guy's work deals primarily with that.)

    Here's the rub: atmospheric O2 levels have been falling faster than CO2 levels have been rising. It's not merely that we're burning oxygen to create carbon dioxide. That doesn't explain the entire 'loss' of atmospheric oxygen by itself. There's also something else going on.

    One of the most likely explanations is that the ocean's ability to convert CO2 back into O2 has been injured by the loss of aerobic ocean life. Part of that loss is due to rising ocean temperatures and ocean acidity killing off plankton. Another part of that loss is due to non-CO2 manmade pollutants; oil spills and industrial pollutants and other types of runoff killing off ocean life.

    What Feral said- and as an added bit

    I keep forgetting that what I know isn't common knowledge. I would argue it should be, but maybe it isn't right now. Over geologic time that concerns ecosystems similar to ours (I.e. "dinousaur time" and forward) O2 concentrations have risen and fallen from around 12% to as high as 21%, and most of these fluctuations are consistent with changes in ecosystem.

    You can make the argument, of course, that it was the ecosystem that drove the change in O2 and not vice-versa, but this is an argument that I don't think is useful as it draws unnecessary lines between biotic and abiotic factors in the ecosystem that can't really be taken separately.
    bowen wrote:
    And I'm not hand-waiving anything, I'm questioning. I could give a rats ass about trying to prove Al Gore wrong, other than the really terrible catch-phrase "Global Warming."

    None of my arguments had anything to do with Al Gore, or even global warming. I was attempting to chastise spool for engaging in the very behavior he previously criticized. In regards to Al Gore- frankly, I don't give a rat's ass whether he was right or wrong. He at least tried to get people to talk about this stuff, and tried to engage with the scientific community. Motives be damned, he was trying to save the earth.

    Arch on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    You can make the argument, of course, that it was the ecosystem that drove the change in O2 and not vice-versa, but this is an argument that I don't think is useful as it draws unnecessary lines between biotic and abiotic factors in the ecosystem that can't really be taken separately.

    Well back then it may have just been one or the other. I think now it's a combination of one of the above, and our massive carbon footprints.
    bowen wrote:
    And I'm not hand-waiving anything, I'm questioning. I could give a rats ass about trying to prove Al Gore wrong, other than the really terrible catch-phrase "Global Warming."

    None of my arguments had anything to do with Al Gore, or even global warming. I was attempting to chastise spool for engaging in the very behavior he previously criticized. In regards to Al Gore- frankly, I don't give a rat's ass whether he was right or wrong. He at least tried to get people to talk about this stuff, and tried to engage with the scientific community. Motives be damned, he was trying to save the earth.

    Oh I thought you were responding to me hand-waiving. Like I said, the only real problem I have is the term "global warming" because people don't connect with it. And really, the goal is to get people to listen.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    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.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    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?

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    A full on use of fusion power would be world changing, I would think.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    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 :(

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    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.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Also @Feral thanks to the link to the dude from Scripps

    <3 Scripps scientists

    EDIT: Argh following that led me to this graph, which is really really scary

    mlo_sio_noaa_w_gap.gif

    Arch on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    You guys keep leaving off that humans can't die off. That'd be a GOOD thing, because Jesus would show up just before it happens.

    What is this I don't even.
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    What does global warming mean in December if it's colder than it's ever been in Europe setting record lows (just something I'm making up I don't know if it's true)? What's the point of reference for that? Global Climate change isn't even over-politicization at that point?

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
Sign In or Register to comment.