Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redwallzyl]

Fuck I clicked the wrong link before copying: https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1010205853985792000

That is horrifying. God damn neoliberals. They just wont die.

Spoiler: climate change derail (click to show/hide)

Your climatic effect description there is quite wrong. Or are you trying to express sarcasm? I can't tell.

Are you sure? The planet is arid during cold periods due to frozen water increasing, lower CO2 reduces plant productivity as does cooler temperatures, and violent frequent storms are what happens when the equator and pole have a larger energy difference for work to be drawn from in the form of tornadic and cyclonic systems. The largest desert on the planet is the south pole ice cap, it is utterly inhospitable, the largest hot deserts have been shrinking since the end of the last glacial, there's no reason to magically expect that to reverse if more fresh water were freed up, is there?

You have read all the IPCC reports fully right?

Come now, Max. Don't give us the 'have you read the IPCC reports fully', when it's clear that you haven't. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying the opposite of what they are about the strength of tropical storms (it's page 993 in the AR5).

The rest of what you wrote is just half truths.
Sure, parts of the arctic might become more hospitable with rising temperatures. But what good will it do for people already living in areas that will in turn become less hospitable?
Sure, more CO2 stimulates plant growth. But what good will it do for the farmer if his crops keep dying due to droughts?
Sure, higher temperature means more moisture in the air. But what reason is there to expect it to end up watering your plants, and not instead flooding some guy in Bangladesh?
These are complex issues, and trying to naively apply global changes to local conditions is no different than a guy proclaiming that there's no warming, because there's snow outside his window.

Climate change is a problem because it's a change. You have population centres located where they are located because the local climate is conductive to human settlement. Conductive not because you don't get your armpits sweaty, but because they're reasonably safe, you can grow enough food in the vicinity, and they're not under water.
If that changes, and those areas become less ideal, people will have to pony up their hard earned cash to mitigate the worsening conditions, or move. Or starve, I guess. It will cost money, increase government interventionism, and run a high risk of destabilising volatile regions.
It won't matter much to the affected people that some other area became nice, when they're losing their homes.

Will they all move to the lush plains opening up in Siberia? Who's gonna pay for it? Who's gonna build the infrastructure? Will they be accepted where they go?
Given what is currently happening in Syria - destabilised after a major drought, mind you - and with Syrian refugees, these have become rhetorical questions.

Sure, there's a lot of over-the-top exaggerations of the effects of global warming floating in conversations - in this thread as well - so it's understandable that people start rolling their eyes. No, the Earth won't burn. No, humanity won't get killed off. No, it won't be a civilization-ending catastrophe.
But then again, that's not what any of the reports say, is it?

+1
One of the most important things to the prosperity of the world is stability. Climate change is the great unstabilizer. All throughout history when it has happened, and I will note that they were smaller swings then we are seeing now, it has caused massive damage.

[Lord Shonus]

One of the most important things to the prosperity of the world is stability. Climate change is the great unstabilizer. All throughout history when it has happened, and I will note that they were smaller swings then we are seeing now, it has caused massive damage.

While this is entirely correct, a big problem with the climate debate is the feeling of being "lied to". I was in an argument recently with a guy who insisted climate change was just another false alarm like acid rain, the ozone hole, and smog. These are problems that have largely been dealt with (not yet eliminated, and smog is only really beaten back in some areas) through regulation and treaties, but he remembered all of them being presented as huge apocalyptic disasters. When those disasters failed to appear (due to a massive and largely successful effort being taken to prevent them), he attributed this to "the whole thing was an excuse to butt in", not "even the biggest environmental problems can be solved if decisive action is taken".

Forecasting far larger consequences than even the worst projections suggest only feeds into this - even if you convince somebody to look into the science, they're more likely to come away with a "you liar! None of these scientists really expect the earth to be a lifeless rock in 50 years!" reaction instead of "This is actually pretty bad, and we should do something about it even if it isn't as bad as I was told" reaction.

Like it or not, the best way to address public perception would be to calmly and repeatedly make modest predictions - then use those predictions as a springboard when they are proven true. This wouldn't have convinced everybody (the denial drummers are very loud), but the voice of reason would have sunk into enough minds eventually, and probably more quickly than any other tactic would do.

[Ametsala]

Traveller, given the number of ships in the world can you source your claim that the 20 most polluting ships emit more than all the other ships in existancw?

I believe it's just urban legend based on a 2009 calculation that the world's 16 largest ships produced as much sulfur oxides as all the world's cars. This was because the amount of sulfur in car fuels is negligible, but the amount of sulfur in ship fuels wasn't regulated. Since then, the amount of sulfur in ship fuel has become regulated, so the claim isn't accurate anymore (as someone explains in this Quora page). Also, in 2015 road transport accounted for 75 % of all transportation CO2 emissions (page 39 of source), and the shipping industry's CO2 emissions were estimated to be 2.2% of global human-made emissions in 2012. So no 50% global emissions cuts by scrapping a couple of ships. (Well, maybe in sulfur oxides...)

Anyways, did you guys notice that Trump's tariffs are working? Harley-Davidson's moving some of its production out of the US. Donald is surprised. Wonder what Paul Ryan thinks...

[Reelya]

We'd have more bang for the buck if we can farm seaweed at commercial scales, and feed it to cows, to prevent farting and burping. And that's no hot air.

http://www.times-standard.com/article/NJ/20180525/NEWS/180529875

During lab tests last year, researchers in Australia found that just 2 percent seaweed in cattle feed could reduce methane emissions by 99 percent.

The mass of the methane saved also turns into more cow instead of being farted away. The only problem is mass-producing the additive, which is a ways off.

[Dunamisdeos]

That idea smells. It's making me salty.

[Doomblade187]

Wait, they can't grow seaweed commercially? Then where do they make packaged seaweed wraps?

[Dunamisdeos]

TBH I always felt that was like asking how do they raise artificial crabs for the meat.

[redwallzyl]

If it can be done for a profit someone will come up with a scalable seaweed farm. Whether that will be a good thing is up for debate given the history of such things.

[McTraveller]

I guess I wasn't explicit enough by mentioning specific pollutants in my previous post - I thought it was kind of clear when I mentioned diesel particulates and unburned hydrocarbons.  It was a slightly subtle ploy of "statistics can never lie, but you can make them say whatever you want."

Best possible things as a society we can do to reduce CO2 emissions (if you're dead set on just looking at that one chemical) is actually to reduce the need for transportation. I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and over half my family's direct energy CO2 is due to transportation.  I'd love to see government incentives to companies for telecommuting - that would be better off that subsidizing electric cars  (people tend to drive more efficient cars more miles than less efficient cars). It would also have many other benefits, like lower traffic (fewer accidents, less road wear and tear), higher worker productivity*, and less of the non-CO2 pollutants.

*Yes this is actually true for some industries, especially white-collar.

[Culise]

Wait, they can't grow seaweed commercially? Then where do they make packaged seaweed wraps?

They do grow seaweed commercially: around 10-12 million tons (frozen) a year, give or take, if these 2010 figures are anywhere close to the modern day.  I'd imagine the problem is that you can make more money off it selling directly to people, and that feeding the entire world's cattle supply on it, even at a mere 2% of their feed, is a significant outlay on top of that. 

EDIT:
To add, though, that is just a WAG on my part based on the immediate supposition by Reelya; the problem he asserts with scaling up production of the supplements may not be tied to seaweed itself at all.  Seaweed aquaculture also has the same problems with nutrient depletion and overstock that conventional agriculture has; water pollution from the effluvia can cause environmental issues, so contrary to the article's assertion, scaling production even further may have negative environmental impact on pelagic regions.  Properly done, it can also be good for the environment by increasing local biodiversity, but that's as long as you don't exceed the local ability to nourish the new biota.

[Max™]

While this is entirely correct, a big problem with the climate debate is the feeling of being "lied to".

Ding!

It is treated as acceptable to fib and exaggerate a little to the lay audience because the consequences could wind up being massive, but at that point you are no longer acting as a scientist should and if at any point these exaggerations become understood you're not likely to increase support for whatever cause you were behind. Burning hydrocarbons is a wasteful mess for any number of reasons, but leaning on worst case projections (note the use rather than predictions) and reducing a vast complex field to a few easily digested but scary soundbites may not have been the best way to go about weaning us off of oil and coal. I can say this with the benefit of nearly 30 years of hindsight since first reading about the oncoming DOOM! in natgeo and discover and like... omni I wanna say--fuck, there's a blast from the past--and watching the reactionary "nope, nuh-uh, no way" crowd swell is frustrating. Like, how exactly do you tell someone they're kinda right for the wrong reasons but mostly wrong because [blahblahblah] before their eyes roll back in their head and you lose them entirely because their position is grounded in a proud ignorance?

[SalmonGod]

Interesting article on the infamous "I Don't Care" jacket.

[MrRoboto75]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Karnewarrior]

Interesting article on the infamous "I Don't Care" jacket.

...Are they trying to link apathy to Fascism? That's kind of a stretch...

[SalmonGod]

Interesting article on the infamous "I Don't Care" jacket.

...Are they trying to link apathy to Fascism? That's kind of a stretch...

I think it's more like the phrase has ideological and propaganda ties to fascist history that have nothing to do with apathy.  We see it as being about apathy partially because of differences in language.

Unless you want to also believe that modern self-labeling fascists are linking themselves to apathy by promoting the phrase, too...