Good grief. "water vapor monopolizes the overall greenhouse effect" is particularly special. It shows either a remarable failure to understand the problem, or an equally remarkable disingenuousness if you do understand it and are using it as an argument.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Sixth Extinction (Environmental News)
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by anton pulisov View PostLinus all worried about CO2 emissions.
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 20983
- The House with the Golden Windows
- Fast falling out of love for football.
- WasPlain Hobnobs
And another thing
The first time you use an abbreviation (abbrev.) or acronym in a post you spell it out in full, then put the abbrev. in brackets.
(It's in the house style guide along with the mandated "Oxford comma")
Comment
-
This one is particular genius. They got loads of funding to go to a coral reef, pump it full of acidic water for a couple of years, and then come back to discover that, hey, the corals aren't so happy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View PostWell done Ethiopia: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-49151523
But hey, pictures of kids frolicking in fountains, dogs eating ice cream and scantily clad young ladies in the park all round!
(Not in the BBC article in fairness)
Comment
-
"Breaking news that popped up on that is that last Thursday broke the all time UK temperature record."
Be careful with sentences like that. The all-time UK temperature record is only really a couple of centuries old at most. And even then the granularity of readings has been increasing massively in the last few years. Number of stations, time between measurements, processing of measurements, etc. From before the modern age we only really have average annual or even average century temperatures depending on how far back you go. But even then, some of these have been warmer in the past than things are right now - it's actually quite likely that Britain was warmer many times in the past than last Thursday.
What man-made global warming is is a wild and unprecedented rate of change (yer hockey-stick curve).* It's not (yet) about absolutes. And overclaims through sloppy language are dangerous, because they get seized upon by people with bad motives.
* - even here is a bit dubious. How can you be sure you are avoiding aliasing? Can you prove that rapid 10-20 year spikes in the past are not being smoothed out of the dataset by unavoidable limitations on your sampling rates for previous epochs compare to the vast amount of time-accurate data available for the present day? One for anton pulisov there... (n.b I hold with the scientific consensus, just interested in how you deal with this!)Last edited by Janik; 29-07-2019, 18:36.
Comment
-
Arctic permafrost melting will aggravate the greenhouse effect.
https://m.phys.org/news/2019-08-arct...se-effect.html
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 19074
- Revelling In The Hole
- England, Chelsea and Tooting and Mitcham. And Surrey CCC. And Wimbledon Dons Speedway (RIP)
- Nairn's Cheese Oatcake
I thought that this was interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
I must confess that I hadn't come across sulphur hexafluoride before.
Comment
-
The industry has, though...
Fuck it, can't embed the Tweet properly and the editor doesn't seem to allow me to remove it. Just look up what Ketan Joshi has to say.Last edited by Eggchaser; 15-09-2019, 16:11.
Comment
-
If you're tired of shouting at the old men who shout at the clouds, here's an Oniony take on the terrible takes on Greta Thunberg:
http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/jeremy-...ts-to-herself/
Comment
-
I find that sort of analysis not particularly helpful, and arguably counterproductive. It's not like most of those companies are actually contributing all that much in terms of emissions themselves. For the most part, it's the people buying their oil and gas and coal and burning it that are putting out the emissions. If we were to shut the 20 companies down, those emissions would be replaced pretty quickly.
That's not to say the individual companies haven't made some horrific contributions to the climate crisis, through lobbying, misinformation etc, and to a certain extent through emissive extraction methods, shipping and so on (10% compared to 90% for end-users, according to the article). But the data just isn't very meaningful in terms of policy options. All it really tells us is that the global fossil fuel industry is highly concentrated. Which is not exactly a surprise.Last edited by Ginger Yellow; 09-10-2019, 15:17.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
It lies (primarily) with our dependence on and profligate use of fossil fuels (and two plus decades of political inaction after the consequences became perfectly clear). Which is to a certain extent a function of capitalism (it has historically been cheaper to use dirtier fuel sources, for instance). But I don't see what that has to do with the individual companies (as I say, lobbying etc is another thing entirely) doing the extraction. If there's demand for those carbon intensive fuels, and it's legal, someone will extract it. We've got to deal with the demand. That can be through a carbon tax, subsidising green alternatives, or whatever, but we've got to look at it at a macro level.
To put it another way myself, a more interesting and useful data analysis would be to look at the 20 biggest actual emitters, ie the end-users burning the fuels or the makers of products that burn them. That would tell us at least something about what we need to do to reduce the use of oil/gas/coal, rather than just saying - these companies are the biggest oil/gas/coal companies, which is not very interesting..Last edited by Ginger Yellow; 09-10-2019, 16:00.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment