Options

Climate Change or: Is it hot in here? And cold? And on fire? And Underwater?!

12346»

Posts

  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    It's a paper that wasn't published in any academic journal or pass peer-review. Worth remembering when viewing this article saying it's inevitable within a decade.

    With the additional caveat that is a tenured academic whose CV looks legitimate. Combined with the discussion on the linked page of why reviewers were hesitant to publish the paper upon review, it is at least worth talking about.

    To me it reads as a well cited blog post whose purpose is to scare the reader into immediate action to mitigate what damages we can due to climate change. It is very compelling, but I can understand why it was rejected. To me, it was like a mod here telling us to stop chicken littering.

    Was that the proper response from the journals? I have no idea, but I don't see it as some nefarious plot to silence him as the author seems to claim.

    I don't really see the author making that claim, either. It feels like the sensationalism of the Vice article is coloring the response in ways I'm not seeing reading the background on the author's site.

    Like, this guy is 100 percent laying out an outlying claim and arguing why this viewpoint is underrepresented in published literature and why it should become a more prominent view. That's simply academia, but the actual discussion on the page isn't some firebrand raging at the profession.

  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    It's a paper that wasn't published in any academic journal or pass peer-review. Worth remembering when viewing this article saying it's inevitable within a decade.

    With the additional caveat that is a tenured academic whose CV looks legitimate. Combined with the discussion on the linked page of why reviewers were hesitant to publish the paper upon review, it is at least worth talking about.

    To me it reads as a well cited blog post whose purpose is to scare the reader into immediate action to mitigate what damages we can due to climate change. It is very compelling, but I can understand why it was rejected. To me, it was like a mod here telling us to stop chicken littering.

    Was that the proper response from the journals? I have no idea, but I don't see it as some nefarious plot to silence him as the author seems to claim.

    I don't really see the author making that claim, either. It feels like the sensationalism of the Vice article is coloring the response in ways I'm not seeing reading the background on the author's site.

    Like, this guy is 100 percent laying out an outlying claim and arguing why this viewpoint is underrepresented in published literature and why it should become a more prominent view. That's simply academia, but the actual discussion on the page isn't some firebrand raging at the profession.

    Yeah, you're probably right that that impression was largely driven by the article and not the paper itself.

    But like I said, his argument is highly compelling and while I dont accept his timeframes (probably mostly due to fear if I'm being honest), I dont have anything against the argument presented.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington, announced his candidacy for president today, intending to run heavily as a climate change candidate.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    That happened a couple months ago I thought.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    No, it was today. Pretty futile in terms of his chances, I guess, but the more climate change pressure the better.

  • Options
    kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    There was at least a rumor some time ago that he would run focused on climate change, because it's not the first I've heard of it. I don't think he officially announced it then though.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • Options
    I ZimbraI Zimbra Worst song, played on ugliest guitar Registered User regular
    Sounds like he fully understands he has no chance of winning and is just running to try and bang the drum for doing something about climate change.

    Which, as vanity candidacies go, is a pretty damn good reason.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    The rejection I saw on that article was mostly about it's sensationalism that the editors of journals don't really want in their articles

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No, it was today. Pretty futile in terms of his chances, I guess, but the more climate change pressure the better.

    Yeah I think his odds aren't great. He's a professional with a niche and a base so of any of the also-rans I think he has the best chance.

    But even if he doesn't get far, its a good narrative to push.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    If he plans to run as an independant, then I'd rather he travel to his nearest coal seam and directly ignite the coal in the ground using a series of napalm bombs.

    The US presidential system means that independants running for president are actively bad, and hurt the chances of getting the thing they want done done. Want to bang the drum for climate change? Do it as a Democrat, and then proudly embrace the eventual winner as a champion of climate issues.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    If he plans to run as an independant, then I'd rather he travel to his nearest coal seam and directly ignite the coal in the ground using a series of napalm bombs.

    The US presidential system means that independants running for president are actively bad, and hurt the chances of getting the thing they want done done. Want to bang the drum for climate change? Do it as a Democrat, and then proudly embrace the eventual winner as a champion of climate issues.

    huh?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    He's running for a nomination as the Democratic candidate, so no worries about yet another green spoiler candidate.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    He's running for a nomination as the Democratic candidate, so no worries about yet another green spoiler candidate.

    Excellent, then all power to him!

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    He's running for a nomination as the Democratic candidate, so no worries about yet another green spoiler candidate.

    Excellent, then all renewable power to him!

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    L Ron HowardL Ron Howard The duck MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    So I don't think it's been posted, but I've been seeing a ton of hype around the fact that scientists have found a way to turn Carbon in the atmosphere back into coal.

    But, like tons of other carbon capture technology, I have my doubts that anything will be done with this. I really hope so. I really, really do.

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I mean, there was a process announced.... last year? Where they accidentally figured out a chemical process to trap carbon that had water as a byproduct. These are not production ready ideas.

  • Options
    JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    So I don't think it's been posted, but I've been seeing a ton of hype around the fact that scientists have found a way to turn Carbon in the atmosphere back into coal.

    But, like tons of other carbon capture technology, I have my doubts that anything will be done with this. I really hope so. I really, really do.

    Is the liquid metal catalyst they're using economically viable for industrial scale?

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Options
    L Ron HowardL Ron Howard The duck MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    It's obviously not production ready, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to make it so. We should be diverting resources into this to extract all the excessive carbon in the atmosphere.

    I remember reading an article of basically a giant air purifier that pulled carbon from the air and leaving the carbon as a black powder to be collected.

    Or the carbon collecting things they've talked about putting in the deserts for a while.

    I'm sure I've read another thing or two that have disappeared. We should be doing something about it, but it seems like we're not. Probably because we aren't.

  • Options
    JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    I mean, a lot of these carbon capture ideas are not actually possible to scale. Some seem to require so much land and energy that we would emit more CO2 in the construction of the carbon capture infrastructure than it would sequester in the short term.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    We'd really need to move away from all oil or coal burning power in their entirety or else we're literally just wasting energy.

    They make okay sense when we're using solar power or nuclear power to power the devices but if it is just going to encourage people to burn more coal we might as well just fucking not.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    Inslee running as the climate change candidate is a little weird, since he has accomplished basically fuck-all on that front in his two terms

  • Options
    ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Inslee running as the climate change candidate is a little weird, since he has accomplished basically fuck-all on that front in his two terms

    Hey, that's not true!

    During his tenure as governor, things got worse! https://www.kuow.org/stories/washington-s-carbon-emissions-keep-getting-worse

    Source: KUOW is an NPR member station run out of the UW.

    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Washington also failed to pass 2 ballot initiatives on carbon taxes so lol

  • Options
    AimAim Registered User regular
    That article fails to point how Washin
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Inslee running as the climate change candidate is a little weird, since he has accomplished basically fuck-all on that front in his two terms

    Hey, that's not true!

    During his tenure as governor, things got worse! https://www.kuow.org/stories/washington-s-carbon-emissions-keep-getting-worse

    Source: KUOW is an NPR member station run out of the UW.

    It would be nice if articles like this compared emisions evolution to other states, and to the economy in general. As is, it tells you next to nothing.

  • Options
    ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Aim wrote: »
    That article fails to point how Washin
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Inslee running as the climate change candidate is a little weird, since he has accomplished basically fuck-all on that front in his two terms

    Hey, that's not true!

    During his tenure as governor, things got worse! https://www.kuow.org/stories/washington-s-carbon-emissions-keep-getting-worse

    Source: KUOW is an NPR member station run out of the UW.

    It would be nice if articles like this compared emisions evolution to other states, and to the economy in general. As is, it tells you next to nothing.

    The other article from a different local area newspaper is more informative (goes into the population growth of Seattle and other populated cities in the area and how that affects the states' overall carbon output) and ranks it relative to other states.......but it's behind a paywall.

    ...and I ran out of freeloader views on the site.

    EDIT - but, given that the initial plan that the state made for itself stated a reduction in carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels, I'd hardly say the article tells us "next to nothing." The article is Washington-centric by design.

    Erlkönig on
    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • Options
    MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    In case you've ever had to deal with people who claim that humans can't possibly affect the climate because the sun's so much bigger and more powerful - the sun has been getting (very slightly) less luminous over the past few years and the climate is still warming.

    Basically, when the sun has a lot of sunspots, it's slightly more luminous (lot of solar physics involved, not going to explain right now). The sun has very few right now, and might be heading towards another Maunder Minimum sort of period, when the sun had very few sunspots for about a century and a half. The Maunder Minimum had been blamed before for the Little Ice Age, only that got started before the Maunder Minimum so it doesn't make sense. The Little Ice Age appears to have been started by the depopulation of the Americas, causing plant regrowth that drew down CO2 levels. (The Medieval Warm Period's end also seems to have caused by the Mongols - they massacred enough people and spread plague far enough to drop populations down in the same manner).

    So people online who are claiming humans can't affect the climate - they're not talking in good faith. Don't fall for their lies and don't let others fall for them either.

    Mayabird on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    That's the problem too, though.

    As the sun burns through its hydrogen, it gets warmer. So they do have a point it's just a dumb point. Because that's a scale of something like 1.5-2 billion years from now. The good news is we have several candidate planets and planetoids (Titan) that might be a solution if we're still around at that point as our sun enters the red giant phase of its lifecycle. That gives us something like 8-10 billion years to figure out what to do with ourselves.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    But that's only 4 to 5 thousand thousand periods of time since christ was born! We will never be ready by then.

  • Options
    MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    That's the problem too, though.

    As the sun burns through its hydrogen, it gets warmer. So they do have a point it's just a dumb point. Because that's a scale of something like 1.5-2 billion years from now. The good news is we have several candidate planets and planetoids (Titan) that might be a solution if we're still around at that point as our sun enters the red giant phase of its lifecycle. That gives us something like 8-10 billion years to figure out what to do with ourselves.

    Climate change on the range of millions of years isn't the issue here and we both know it. If we don't make it through the next century none of that stuff about Earth being unable to support any life in billions of years will matter to us in the least.

  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    That's the problem too, though.

    As the sun burns through its hydrogen, it gets warmer. So they do have a point it's just a dumb point. Because that's a scale of something like 1.5-2 billion years from now. The good news is we have several candidate planets and planetoids (Titan) that might be a solution if we're still around at that point as our sun enters the red giant phase of its lifecycle. That gives us something like 8-10 billion years to figure out what to do with ourselves.

    Climate change on the range of millions of years isn't the issue here and we both know it. If we don't make it through the next century none of that stuff about Earth being unable to support any life in billions of years will matter to us in the least.

    Yeah I was in agreement, it's a dumb point even though it's a technically correct point. On the scale climate change is happening it's a rounding error.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Sorry, I just got a bit snippy because nitpickers always are jumping on tiny little points and doing their "CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!" sorts of smarmy crap as if they've defeated all climate change and thus Ben Shapiro-senpai will notice them any moment now.

    Mayabird on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    it's fair I shouldn't have done it

    I just like talking about nuclear chemistry/physics a lot

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    So I was just looking at a loop of the last 12 hours of sattellite/radar, and is it just me or is this land hurricane trying to form an eye over Minneapolis right now?

    What's the record for bomb cyclones in the US in a year? This spring just has the feeling that these events are the new normal.

  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    So I was just looking at a loop of the last 12 hours of sattellite/radar, and is it just me or is this land hurricane trying to form an eye over Minneapolis right now?

    What's the record for bomb cyclones in the US in a year? This spring just has the feeling that these events are the new normal.

    It's the heat island from the metro - storms systems tend to flow around the cities in general? I think?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    We seem to have two climate change threads. I have chosen to close this one, utterly at random.

    Geth, close the thread.

  • Options
    GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Bogart. Closing thread...

This discussion has been closed.