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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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.
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!".
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
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.
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!".
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
+6
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
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
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.
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) |
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
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.
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
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.
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
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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?
Posts
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.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Which, as vanity candidacies go, is a pretty damn good reason.
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.
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?
Excellent, then all power to him!
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!".
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.
"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!".
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.
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.
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.
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.
I just like talking about nuclear chemistry/physics a lot
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?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Geth, close the thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3