Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 10:05am PT
|
Its still cold there
Yep, definitely still cold there! Though you could say that's relative ... contrast the cold absolute temps (top) and warm temp anomaly colors (bottom) for the Antarctic in today's 30-day NOAA map.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 10:10am PT
|
It feels kinda cold where I live today but I'm sure the penguins would think it toasty.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 10:42am PT
|
Do show us where there is this supposed "departure from average" within that instrument record, MONO.
What is that boy talking about?
Sketch, can you translate?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 22, 2014 - 10:48am PT
|
Grand example that you of course do... intend to debate this rationally.
Meaning if one goes along with your ideological political agenda, all is good and rational.
No The Chief, your interpretation of what I said is wrong. What I said is stright forward and really needs no interpretation from you. So I don't know why you feel the need to "translate" what I said.
Simply, you don't debate in a rational manner. You ignore what folks post, change the topic when things don't go your way, and put words in peoples mouths (like the post of yours I just quoted). You cherry-pick data and don't acknowledge when you have been shown to be completely wrong.
I hope that's clear and you don't find a need to rephrase what I "mean" so as to make yourself look reasonable. Because you are anything but reasonable.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 11:03am PT
|
so Sketch posted a policy issue piece (or excerpts from one) that raises an interesting question, but not about the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
in the article that Sketch provided a link to (thanks) we also read:
"Climate scientists have definitively shown that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger. Whether measured in dollars or human suffering, climate change threatens to take a terrible toll on civilization over the next century. To radically cut the emission of greenhouse gases, the obvious first target is the energy sector, the largest single source of global emissions."
First off, increasing energy use makes matters worse. As has been written here many times, the transfer of technologies for energy production has to balance the net benefit. If I generate energy with solar cells, or with wind turbines, or I use biofuels, I have to take into account the total energy use of the production, and the eventual decommissioning of the technologies including the amount of GHG's produced, etc. produced throughout the "life cycle."
The advocate research...
"Wouldn’t it be great if governments and energy companies adopted a similar approach in their technology R&D investments? The result could be energy innovation at Google speed. Adopting the 70-20-10 rubric could lead to a portfolio of projects. The bulk of R&D resources could go to existing energy technologies that industry knows how to build and profitably deploy. These technologies probably won’t save us, but they can reduce the scale of the problem that needs fixing. The next 20 percent could be dedicated to cutting-edge technologies that are on the path to economic viability. Most crucially, the final 10 percent could be dedicated to ideas that may seem crazy but might have huge impact. Our society needs to fund scientists and engineers to propose and test new ideas, fail quickly, and share what they learn. Today, the energy innovation cycle is measured in decades, in large part because so little money is spent on critical types of R&D."
which I'm all for, but once again what is the driving motivation for the research? and how quickly must the research provide results?
The idea that we shouldn't do anything because it will be economically disruptive isn't a good reason for not doing anything. Lacking from most statements of the consequences of following the "do nothing" path is presumption of those who state it that things will just continue to be the way they are (or that we can do nothing to change what will happen anyway).
The reason that the "energy innovation cycle is measured in decades" isn't necessarily just because we don't spent on research, it is also because there are physical limits to the possibilities of generating highly efficient energy. Evolution, which is a natural process driven by energy conversion efficiency, has resulted in a sustainable (at least it has a 3.4 billion year track record) system that converts the incident light from the sun into biologically useful energy products that is roughly 3-6% efficient. Photosynthesis produces about 130 TW of power annually, humans produce roughly 10 TW of power annually, most of it by using the ancient carbon compounds produced as a result of photosynthesis in the past.
Human research in "solar cells" has resulted in devices that are 45% efficient, but the cost of generating power with those devices exceeds the cost of other energy sources, and there is the rub.
Part of the problem is the fact that the GHG's produced by fossil fuel use are exhausted into the atmosphere for free. The historical cultural presumption was that the exhaust was so much smaller than the atmosphere that it wouldn't have any affect; "the solution to pollution is dilution." But human energy use has been exponential while the volume of the atmosphere hasn't changed... and we find that our exhausts are having an affect large enough to alter the climate. This will have economic consequences in the future (and that "future" may already be here).
The cost of those consequences represents the difference between our current economic model of burning the fossil fuels, and the "true cost" of burning the fuels.
The logic of a tax on carbon emission is that it tries to price the use of the fossil fuels to take into account the unrecovered costs of the emissions.
Fuel prices will go up, and this opens the market up to other technological solutions that are cost competitive with energy production with fossil fuels where the exhaust is vented into the atmosphere.
Fuel prices will go up, and the reason is the finiteness of the Earth's ability to accept the byproducts of the fuel use. This is not some radical idea, we no longer pump raw sewage into streams and oceans, there are just too many of us... we've even taken to avoiding peeing into creeks when we're up in the mountains, we're aware that even in these remote places we can overwhelm the natural resources.
A "carbon tax" gets directly at the issue of GHG emission, it prices the venting of exhaust from fossil fuel use, and the increased costs alters the energy production market by incentivizing the reduction of that exhaust.
It is hugely disruptive. But without such a disruption the energy market isn't going to change. And the energy market drives all the other markets.
Now markets don't like change (for the most part), but the markets will change without an alteration of our current energy production behavior. Not only that, the nature of the change is uncertain, which is even more problematic for markets. Hoping that this will not happen, by ignoring the research results of scientists as bad as assuming that scientists and engineers will find a way to avert a potential crisis in the future, especially as they conclude that changing our behavior now is the best start to solving those bad scenarios for tomorrow.
While it seems simple to recognize the finiteness of the Earth's resources, the economic consequences of that recognition seem unacceptable to many. The problem is that we don't have much to say about that, the ecology is not infinitely elastic, at some point, it breaks; and recognizing economics as a subfield of ecology, it is safe to assume that the economy breaks along with the ecosystem.
Once broken, there is no known path forward.
If we understand that, and we understand the human activity is driving towards that point, we have to ask ourselves why we do not act to avoid it, it is within our power to do so.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 11:21am PT
|
The Chief is an advocate of the "do nothing" course.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
from Sketch's linked article...
We’re glad that Google tried something ambitious with the RE<C initiative, and we’re proud to have been part of the project. But with 20/20 hindsight, we see that it didn’t go far enough, and that truly disruptive technologies are what our planet needs. To reverse climate change, our society requires something beyond today’s renewable energy technologies. Fortunately, new discoveries are changing the way we think about physics, nanotechnology, and biology all the time. While humanity is currently on a trajectory to severe climate change, this disaster can be averted if researchers aim for goals that seem nearly impossible.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 11:49am PT
|
in contradistinction to you, The Chief, you are doing nothing; except contributing to the emission which you reserve the "right" to do freely, and without having to be held accountable for the consequences.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 22, 2014 - 01:28pm PT
|
Wow. That is some impressive projection.
Projection? No, observation. Big difference.
But what would you know.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 03:32pm PT
|
Scientific study reveals conspiracy theorists the most sane of all by J. D. Heyes
November 22, 2014
Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, “conspiracy theorists” appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.
(NaturalNews) If you’re a conspiracy theorist, then you’re crazy, right? That’s been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true.
Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, “conspiracy theorists” appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.
The most recent study was published in July 2013 by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent in the UK. Entitled “‘What about Building 7?’ A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” the study compared “conspiracist,” or pro-conspiracy theory, and “conventionalist,” or anti-conspiracy, comments on news websites.
The researchers noted that they were surprised to find that it is now more conventional to believe so-called conspiracist comments than conventional ones.
“Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist,” the researchers wrote.
‘The research showed that people who favored the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile’
So, among people who comment on news articles, those who discount official government accounts of events like the 9/11 attacks and the assassination of John F. Kennedy outnumber believers by more than two-to-one. That means the pro-conspiracy commenters are those who are now expressing what is considered conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters represent a small, beleaguered minority that is often scoffed at and shunned.
Perhaps becoming frustrated that their alleged mainstream viewpoints are no longer considered as such by the majority, those who are anti-conspiracy commenters often showed anger and disgust in their posts.
“The research… showed that people who favored the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals,” said the study.
Also, it seems that those who do not believe in the conspiracies were not just hostile but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. The researchers said that, according to the anti-conspiracy holders, their own theory of 9/11 — one which says 19 Muslims, none of whom could fly commercial airliners with any proficiency, pulled off an amazing surprise attack under the direction of a man on dialysis (Osama bin Laden) who was living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan — is unwaveringly true.
Meanwhile, “conspiracists,” on the hand, did not have to pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11. “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account,” the researchers said.
As reported by Veterans Today:
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist — a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory — accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
A book, Conspiracy Theory in America, by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, was published last year by the University of Texas Press.
“The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time,”.
"Those who use the term as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed and historically accurate conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination."
Sources:
http://www.veteranstoday.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/07/10/what-does-online-discussion-tell-us-about-the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories/
http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html#
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 05:33pm PT
|
You nor anyone here can provide any certain proof that our actions or inactions will impact the course of Climate Change.
I think that the "proof" is as certain as is needed to formulate a course of action.
Halting the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important first step. Once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's natural residency there can be quite long. Schemes to draw down that CO2 will be part of a long term approach.
I'm not sure what the accusation of "LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALISM" has to do with anything. I thought this thread was talking about Climate Change... and I was specifically discussing the science.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 05:35pm PT
|
My point is it will be exceptionally difficult requiring everyone to give up a pound of flesh, for the good of humanity.
This is a long range problem. Most people (worldwide) are concerned food and shelter.
and climate change will make matters even worse...
one can think about the problems in terms of the ecological carrying capacity of the Earth, especially with respect to the human species.
What happens when we exceed that carrying capacity is that humans will have an "exceptionally difficult" time meeting their very basic needs. In fact, they won't be able to... what do you think happens then?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 22, 2014 - 05:57pm PT
|
This is a long range problem. Most people (worldwide) are concerned [about] food and shelter.
Both true statements. However, this is a long-range problem that we know exists, and we know the probable consequences of doing nothing.
Individual citizens are not able to change the course of national energy policies, that is up to the leaders of industrialized countries. It is their job to do what is right for their country's long-term opportunities.
Said by David Brower, and apparently etched on the glass of the Patagonia corporate headquarters door, is the quote, "There is no business to be done on a dead planet."
You can argue economics of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels until the cows come home. The truth is, ignore this problem and the solutions only become more expensive.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 06:25pm PT
|
What happens when we exceed the carrying capacity is that humans will have an exceptionally difficult time- Quote of the great Eduardo.
A few thoughts on this.
1. Haven't we heard this modern siren song of imminent doom for at least the last fifty years. The population bomb, peak oil, nuclear anihlation, CAGW. All has turned out to be the ignorance of intellectual superstition.
2. What exactly is the carrying capacity? We have more foodstuffs, energy sources, higher standards of living and speed of technological development than any time in human history. Why, in the face of this improvement of the human condition, should we assume that we will neccessarily populate past carrying capacity? Considering the Increasing speed of technology advancement ,why would one assume our species is limited to the confines of this planet?
3. What is it that produces such dispair in you silly ass doomists that you consider genocide through forced energy impoverishment as a viable solution to unproven problems?
4. Is the pace of change of modern life what causes such neurosis in you supposedly intellectual elites?
5. WTF is it dummies, do you even know?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 06:56pm PT
|
Why keep an imaginary gun to eveyones head all the time Kos?
And your wrong about the single child rule In China. They abandoned enforcement of that a while ago, but not before a generation of excess males arose.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 07:27pm PT
|
Forty five years ago, while you canuckistani's were still cowering in your caves, the U.S.A. put men on the moon and returned them safely.
Frosty, don't be assuming limitations for our species. Your species on the other hand....
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 23, 2014 - 09:06am PT
|
Heartland.org.
You are kidding, right?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2014 - 09:44am PT
|
I'll have you know I have perfect dentition Frosty..
I see Chiloe's alter ego is back.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!