FullMetalx117
Member
To all the people who are celebrating the rise of EVs - you all do know that a vast majority of electric power is hydrocarbon based right?
Even switching to coal powered EVs is better than a continuation of ICE powered cars. The efficiency gains of centralized power generation far outweigh the most efficient ICEs. As a result of the increased efficiency we will still produce considerably less greenhouse gases.To all the people who are celebrating the rise of EVs - you all do know that a vast majority of electric power is hydrocarbon based right?
Just thinking about all this and, surely this is a golden opportunity to try and convince the general public once and for all about climate change and use Exxon as the sacrificial lamb to move the power away from businesses?
I know public opinion is easily swayed but maybe in these times or dramatised news you could play up to it and make Exxon the public figurehead of movie style bad guy and be forced to defeat them to try and sweep in some real change with regards to our use of non renewable energy. Sounds silly I know but people pay attention when things are exciting and easy to understand.
The most hilariously infuriating part about it all is money isn't even real. It's a set of ideas and evocations over reality.
Money is more important then people.
Another example of how utterly fucked up America is.
Goddamn this is sad and disgusting.
Yup. I've brought this up before. Even on Neogaf people simply refuse to make any lifestyle changes to help mitigate the effects of climate change.In addition to oil, farming also contributes to climate change since cows are major contributors to greenhouse gases.
Too bad humans won't give them up because they're so tasty and profitable.
Always easy to blame problems on one industry when there's also another part of the problem.
Yup. I've brought this up before. Even on Neogaf people simply refuse to make any lifestyle changes to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
Can't eat less meat.
Can't get hybrid or EV because they're not fun cars or I can't be bothered to rent a car for my 2 road trips a year.
Can't be bothered to consider more sustainable housing.
Can't be bothered to shut off the AC when you leave for work.
You know what's worse than climate change deniers? People that acknowledge it and still do nothing. Like most of GAF.
I don't think you have to single out gaf. Otherwise I'm with you - our civilization dies the death of a billion dont-cares.Yup. I've brought this up before. Even on Neogaf people simply refuse to make any lifestyle changes to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
Can't eat less meat.
Can't get hybrid or EV because they're not fun cars or I can't be bothered to rent a car for my 2 road trips a year.
Can't be bothered to consider more sustainable housing.
Can't be bothered to shut off the AC when you leave for work.
You know what's worse than climate change deniers? People that acknowledge it and still do nothing. Like most of GAF.
Yup. I've brought this up before. Even on Neogaf people simply refuse to make any lifestyle changes to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
Can't eat less meat.
Can't get hybrid or EV because they're not fun cars or I can't be bothered to rent a car for my 2 road trips a year.
Can't be bothered to consider more sustainable housing.
Can't be bothered to shut off the AC when you leave for work.
You know what's worse than climate change deniers? People that acknowledge it and still do nothing. Like most of GAF.
that's really not very accurate at all. The West, yes. The lack of social action and legislative changes in the West, definitely. Some real cunts that happen to think they're Republicans? Absolutely.
Everybody else: marginal at best. Only recently did China become a real polluter on par with the US, and while it is very good at that, there was also no impediment on it by its benefactors aka multinational corporations. Which hold, by far, the overwhelming share of all pollution anyway.
Western nations and their businesses can be held accountable because they were in a position of knowledge and (potential) action. And aside from the lack of the latter, have (presumably) all lobbied against the manifestation of either in the larger social domain.
New York attorney general subpoenas Exxon and Peabody Energy, two giants of the fossil fuel industry, over claims it misled the public and investors
The New York attorney general is investigating whether ExxonMobil misled the public and investors about the dangers and potential business risks of climate change, sources familiar with the investigation said on Thursday.
The company confirmed that it had received a subpoena from Eric Schneidermann, the New York attorney general, for financial records, email and other documents related to climate change.
Peabody Energy, the worlds biggest private coal company, is also under investigation, the legal sources confirmed.
The two giants of the fossil fuel industry Exxon and Peabody have long come under criticism from environmental and science groups for funding climate denial front groups, and spreading disinformation about climate science.
To all the people who are celebrating the rise of EVs - you all do know that a vast majority of electric power is hydrocarbon based right?
This was pretty well known in the scientific community for quite some time.
The problem is convincing the public isn't a simple task. Opposition has simple buzzwords and dumbed down "charts"; adequately explaining things takes much more time and nuance. It's really partly a failure of scientists to properly get the word out there.
Imo of course.
Can anyone please give a quick summary on what exactly the Martin Act would do? I don't have time right now to look through that giant pdf I found of it.
Find every last one of those who tried to obscure this, try them for crimes against humanity, expropriate every single penny and throw their ass in jail.
Seriously, there's no punishment harsh enough.
Those people knowingly withheld and opposed information that may be vital for humanity's survival as a species.
And many are still saying we are going into a mini Ice age with the next two years key to determining if this is true.But George Will was telling me scientists were projecting global cooling in the 70s
To all the people who are celebrating the rise of EVs - you all do know that a vast majority of electric power is hydrocarbon based right?
And many are still saying we are going into a mini Ice age with the next two years key to determining if this is true.
FYI we have had Ice ages and lower Seas with CO2 levels 10 times what we have now. CO2 is a minor player as a greenhouse gas with water vapor the major player. Turns out water vapor can be a green house gas and as clouds is a reflector of sunlight and acts to cool the earth. Cosmic Rays ionize and create the seeds to create clouds. Large amount of Cosmic Rays and we go into a major Ice age. This has been confirmed over the last few billion years as the Solar Systems position in the spiral arms of the Milky way where Cosmic ray density is greater. Cloud cover does track Cosmic ray levels.
Climate models were wrong and citing Exon listening those scientists means Exon would have lost tons of money. CO2 does impact temperature in a small way and climate models were counting on increases in water vapor to amplify. They did not count on that water vapor also being a reflector.
So back to why solar Physicists think we are going into a minor 30 year Ice age. The Sun is supposed to be at a solar Max with the most sunspots in a 11 year cycle but there are fewer sunspots in this cycle equivalent to the last 205 year Dalton minimum where we had another mini-ice-age.
As an interesting side bit of knowledge, some are worried about the large Ozone hole in the Antarctic. Ozone is created by Ultraviolet from the Sun and Sunspots increase the amount of Ultraviolet emitted from the Sun. I leave it to the reader to put this together.
The slope of temperature increase from just after 1850 to 15 or so years ago was nearly the same. The predicted hockey stick did not happen. This indicates that CO2 was not the cause of most of that temperature increase. There was a temperature increase!!! A Lot of that heat has been absorbed by the oceans and when the oceans heat they release CO2. The last 15 or so years if there is a temperature increase it's so small as to be undetectable against normal short term variations except for perhaps 2012.
The Greenland Ice shelf is still increasing at about 3 feet a year and WWII planes are under hundreds of feet of Ice. Coastal Glaciers accelerated calving because of lack of Sea Ice at the mouths of bays where those glaciers empty. Sea Ice at certain latitudes melts first as I think everyone knows salt water freezes last and melts first and is very sensitive to temperature increases. The interior Ice is still stable as Summer temperatures are 14 degrees below the temperature water freezes.
Another bit of information: The CO2 level in 1850 was at an all time low historically and halving that would result in the extermination of life on earth, personally I'd like to have a little more buffer in CO2 levels against extermination.
ExxonMobil is under investigation by the New York State Attorney General for potentially misleading shareholders about the threat of climate change. The subpoena comes after reports, including from InsideClimate News, about Exxon's pivot from supporting state-of-the-art research to funding a network of climate denial groups.
Observers have noted that Exxon's campaign of misinformation mirrors what Big Tobacco did about the risks of smoking. That industry is still paying a $246 billion settlement. Bob discusses the pattern, the two prosecutions, and what might come next with Naomi Oreskes of Harvard, co-author of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
Then, Bob revisits his conversation earlier this fall with ExxonMobil's Richard Keil, who responded to the InsideClimate News reporting.
Surely there will be something done about this....right?
....RIGHT!?
Surely there will be something done about this....right?
....RIGHT!?
We are certainly not doing the harm the Global Warming now climate change proponents tell us we are doing. Non sustainable energy was the mantra when I was in College and we worried, still worry about that. I remember solar cell arrays in space beaming microwave energy to antenna farms as one proposal. I also remember the push back from environmentalists about Wind farms killing birds and Hydroelectric dams keeping fish from migrating.Yes, but EV engines are more energy efficient. Over 75% of the energy in a gasoline-powered car engine is lost as heat.
What the fuck? Are you seriously telling me that we are doing good for the planet by burning all these fossil fuels? So, what happens when we run out of it in the next 100 years or so?
Jeff, this is no place for logic and critical thinking. Burn people at the stake now, do minor fact-based research later!And many are still saying we are going into a mini Ice age with the next two years key to determining if this is true.
FYI we have had Ice ages and lower Seas with CO2 levels 10 times what we have now. CO2 is a minor player as a greenhouse gas with water vapor the major player. Turns out water vapor can be a green house gas and as clouds is a reflector of sunlight and acts to cool the earth. Cosmic Rays ionize and create the seeds to create clouds. Large amount of Cosmic Rays and we go into a major Ice age. This has been confirmed over the last few billion years as the Solar Systems position in the spiral arms of the Milky way where Cosmic ray density is greater. Cloud cover does track Cosmic ray levels.
Climate models were wrong and citing Exon listening those scientists means Exon would have lost tons of money. CO2 does impact temperature in a small way and climate models were counting on increases in water vapor to amplify. They did not count on that water vapor also being a reflector.
So back to why solar Physicists think we are going into a minor 30 year Ice age. The Sun is supposed to be at a solar Max with the most sunspots in a 11 year cycle but there are fewer sunspots in this cycle equivalent to the last 205 year Dalton minimum where we had another mini-ice-age.
As an interesting side bit of knowledge, some are worried about the large Ozone hole in the Antarctic. Ozone is created by Ultraviolet from the Sun and Sunspots increase the amount of Ultraviolet emitted from the Sun. I leave it to the reader to put this together.
The slope of temperature increase from just after 1850 to 15 or so years ago was nearly the same. The predicted hockey stick did not happen. This indicates that CO2 was not the cause of most of that temperature increase. There was a temperature increase!!! A Lot of that heat has been absorbed by the oceans and when the oceans heat they release CO2. The last 15 or so years if there is a temperature increase it's so small as to be undetectable against normal short term variations except for perhaps 2012.
The Greenland Ice shelf is still increasing at about 3 feet a year and WWII planes are under hundreds of feet of Ice. Coastal Glaciers accelerated calving because of lack of Sea Ice at the mouths of bays where those glaciers empty. Sea Ice at certain latitudes melts first as I think everyone knows salt water freezes last and melts first and is very sensitive to temperature increases. The interior Ice is still stable as Summer temperatures are 14 degrees below the temperature water freezes.
Another bit of information: The CO2 level in 1850 was at an all time low historically and halving that would result in the extermination of life on earth, personally I'd like to have a little more buffer in CO2 levels against extermination.
Kids.....age does give perspective and exposure to enough politician's lies and you develop a tendency to fact check.Jeff, this is no place for logic and critical thinking. Burn people at the stake now, do minor fact-based research later!
This is almost complete gibberish.And many are still saying we are going into a mini Ice age with the next two years key to determining if this is true.
FYI we have had Ice ages and lower Seas with CO2 levels 10 times what we have now. CO2 is a minor player as a greenhouse gas with water vapor the major player. Turns out water vapor can be a green house gas and as clouds is a reflector of sunlight and acts to cool the earth. Cosmic Rays ionize and create the seeds to create clouds. Large amount of Cosmic Rays and we go into a major Ice age. This has been confirmed over the last few billion years as the Solar Systems position in the spiral arms of the Milky way where Cosmic ray density is greater. Cloud cover does track Cosmic ray levels.
Climate models were wrong and citing Exon listening those scientists means Exon would have lost tons of money. CO2 does impact temperature in a small way and climate models were counting on increases in water vapor to amplify. They did not count on that water vapor also being a reflector.
So back to why solar Physicists think we are going into a minor 30 year Ice age. The Sun is supposed to be at a solar Max with the most sunspots in a 11 year cycle but there are fewer sunspots in this cycle equivalent to the last 205 year Dalton minimum where we had another mini-ice-age.
As an interesting side bit of knowledge, some are worried about the large Ozone hole in the Antarctic. Ozone is created by Ultraviolet from the Sun and Sunspots increase the amount of Ultraviolet emitted from the Sun. I leave it to the reader to put this together.
The slope of temperature increase from just after 1850 to 15 or so years ago was nearly the same. The predicted hockey stick did not happen. This indicates that CO2 was not the cause of most of that temperature increase. There was a temperature increase!!! A Lot of that heat has been absorbed by the oceans and when the oceans heat they release CO2. The last 15 or so years if there is a temperature increase it's so small as to be undetectable against normal short term variations except for perhaps 2012.
The Greenland Ice shelf is still increasing at about 3 feet a year and WWII planes are under hundreds of feet of Ice. Coastal Glaciers accelerated calving because of lack of Sea Ice at the mouths of bays where those glaciers empty. Sea Ice at certain latitudes melts first as I think everyone knows salt water freezes last and melts first and is very sensitive to temperature increases. The interior Ice is still stable as Summer temperatures are 14 degrees below the temperature water freezes.
Another bit of information: The CO2 level in 1850 was at an all time low historically and halving that would result in the extermination of life on earth, personally I'd like to have a little more buffer in CO2 levels against extermination.
Check the facts and prove it, point out the errors and try to not post distorted facts like graphics that leave out every year from 2000 on and squash the horizontal axis (years) to ramp the temperature change to try to prove the Hockey stick. Look at the slope before the dip and after the dip, it's nearly the same. Slope = rate of change = no indication that CO2 is causing global warming as with a doubling of CO2 the slope should increase.This is almost complete gibberish.
Check the facts and prove it, point out the errors and try to not post distorted facts like graphics that leave out every year from 2000 on and squash the horizontal axis (years) to ramp the temperature change to try to prove the Hockey stick. Look at the slope before the dip and after the dip, it's nearly the same. Slope = rate of change = no indication that CO2 is causing global warming as with a doubling of CO2 the slope should increase.
This is accepted fact and it's acknowledged the models were wrong. Everyone is scrambling to determine why the models were wrong. The best fits all of earth history reason is due to cosmic rays causing clouds. Nothing else fits as well. As I said the next two years should determine if this is accurate and if it is then we need to prepare. Canada and polar vortex affected areas of the US will be impacted the hardest with Alaska not suffering much change.
We are certainly not doing the harm the Global Warming now climate change proponents tell us we are doing. Non sustainable energy was the mantra when I was in College and we worried, still worry about that. I remember solar cell arrays in space beaming microwave energy to antenna farms as one proposal. I also remember the push back from environmentalists about Wind farms killing birds and Hydroelectric dams keeping fish from migrating.
Obama lied to us about the reasons to not authorize the Keystone pipeline. It's a self evident lie. If the pipeline wouldn't decrease energy costs for us then it would not be viable as we buy our oil on the world market and if there was no price advantage then it wouldn't sell on the world market. The pipeline would also carry natural gas and oil from fracking in the north western states. That Natural gas is driving down energy prices and lowering our carbon footprint to 1990 levels. Who does not want that pipeline to go through? Oil companies in the rest of the world and ignorant environmentalists. Which camp does Obama belong in?
Shades of Clinton accepting a 1.5 million dollar donation to the democratic party from the owner of the second largest clean coal deposits for making the largest deposits of clean coal a national park.
Done about what?Surely there will be something done about this....right?
....RIGHT!?
I'm gonna need on a source for how and why this correlation is wrong.
Read the chart, before man made CO2 the temperature increased .9 degrees from 1910 to 1940 and .7 degrees from 1940 to 2000. Do the math and there is less global warming after man made CO2; in 30 years .9 degree vs 60 years and .7 degrees.Foffy said:The start of a mass extinction event isn't enough to justify that proponents say this will fuck the planet? We now know it is, and what we've done with global warming has now produced the sixth mass extinction event in recorded history.
It will take decades for it to accelerate, but the fact is it: climate change started it. Get the fuck out of here if you think people are blowing any of this out of proportion when that reality is a pill we're swallowing. Can it literally be any worse? Most proponents have argued less for what the scientists are now saying...
The planet is becoming uninhabitable really fast, and we're the problem. How is it "less worse" than that?
1) Notice the chart stops at the year 2000, it doesn't show the decrease in temperature change with increased CO2 after 2000
2) Notice the temperature is increasing from 1910 to 1940 at a greater rate than after 1950 to 2000 when our CO2 consumption drastically increases and as you move to the right the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. This chart shows that as CO2 increases the effect decreases.
3) from 1940 to 1975 the temperature decreases and this is the industrial boom after and during WWII where CO2 going into the atmosphere drastically increases.
The slope of the temperature line tells all. The following is a better chart showing the slope doesn't change which means CO2 is not having an impact in global warming. The first and second slopes are before Man made CO2 could have an impact on global temperature. Something else is causing that warming and the rate is the same as attributed to man made CO2 in the third red sloping line. .
The graph you are referring to is identical to the one above it as far as temperature increases, it just covers a longer period left out because it's inconvenient. You can use either graph and both show no temperature correlation to either CO2 concentration or CO2 rate of release into the atmosphere.I've got too much homework to do, but the main problem with that chart is that the pink arrows are ignoring the overall increasing trend in air temperature along with the fact that it is using air temperature instead of surface temperature. The other problem and that it is trying to compare emissions to temperature change. Only atmospheric CO2 concentration, not emission, has a direct effect on energy retention.
The graph you are referring to is identical to the one above it as far as temperature increases, it just covers a longer period left out because it's inconvenient. You can use either graph and both show no temperature correlation to either CO2 concentration or CO2 rate of release into the atmosphere.
The impact of water as a greenhouse gas; Clouds as reflector (negative feedback) and water vapor as blanket is net 60% This depends on cosmic rays and is NOT a constant. This is possibly where the climate models are wrong. There are other charts that state water vapor is 85% of the green house gasses. That did not take into account clouds at all.
The graph you are referring to is identical to the one above it as far as temperature increases, it just covers a longer period left out because it's inconvenient. You can use either graph and both show no temperature correlation to either CO2 concentration or CO2 rate of release into the atmosphere.
And many are still saying we are going into a mini Ice age with the next two years key to determining if this is true.
I'm skeptical because parts of Greenland were green and settled during the medieval warming period while many of those same areas are under ice now with temperatures that are supposed to be higher today resulting in glaciers melting at unheard of rates. .I've got too much homework to do, but the main problem with that chart is that the pink arrows are ignoring the overall increasing trend in air temperature along with the fact that it is using air temperature instead of surface temperature. The other problem and that it is trying to compare emissions to temperature change. Only atmospheric CO2 concentration, not emission, has a direct effect on energy retention.
Edit: Now you've added more? In the second set, the figure 7c is schematic since it has no labels and I can find no evidence that the medieval warm period was warmer than the mid 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
I'm skeptical because parts of Greenland were green and settled during the medieval warming period while many of those same areas are under ice now with temperatures that are supposed to be higher today resulting in glaciers melting at unheard of rates. .
Surely there will be something done about this....right?
....RIGHT!?
A theory was put forth that cosmic rays sun interaction is the major climate driving force not CO2. Removing all clouds would increase the earths temperature 10 degrees while increasing low cloud cover would chill it significantly.I'm sorry, but your graphs and analsysis resulting from said graphs is lacking in everything. You can't linearly compare CO2 and temperature and call it a day. You haven't adjusted for the fact that it's not about the levels of CO2 in the air, it's the amount of forcing that CO2 contributes that is more important.
A theory was put forth that cosmic rays sun interaction is the major climate driving force not CO2. Removing all clouds would increase the earths temperature 10 degrees while increasing low cloud cover would chill it significantly.