Climate continues to change.

[gunthernehmen]

"Ship designer: “I think we should make sure that the Titanic is designed with safeguards against possible future climate changes.”

Ship owners: “That would cost way too much money and is unnecessary.”



Navigator: “Captain, there is a possibility there are climate changes ahead on our current course.”

Captain: “Don’t worry, there are no climate changes ahead. Full speed ahead.”

...


https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/climate-change-and-the-titanic/

And if we had just a few more years, global warming would have made sure the iceberg the Titanic hit would never have existed and the ship and all those people would still be alive.

The problem with your analogy is that NOBODY on the ACC side is offering any navigation that makes any sense. And few enough on the other side.

Stop screwing around with griping about the horrible deniers and their diesel trucks and advocate for clean, modern nuclear power.

 

[lustatopia]

Ship designer: “I think we should make sure that the Titanic is designed to sink itself because it's the Titanic and is going to sink anyway.”

Ship owners: “That would cost way too much money and is unnecessary.”

Navigator: “Captain, there is a possibility there are icebergs ahead on our current course.”

Captain: “Bullshit, mate! This is 2019. The MET office assured us the Arctic ice cap disappeared in 2007.... FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!”

heh...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIwuLeHnTVI

 

[trysail]

"Ship designer: “I think we should make sure that the Titanic is designed with safeguards against possible future climate changes.”

Ship owners: “That would cost way too much money and is unnecessary.”

Navigator: “Captain, there is a possibility there are climate changes ahead on our current course.”

Captain: “Don’t worry, there are no climate changes ahead. Full speed ahead.”

...

*beats head against wall*

Dear god.

You probably shouldn't leave home today.

You might be killed in an automobile accident.
You might be killed crossing the street.
You might be bitten by a snake.
You could contract a fatal disease.
You might be stung by a bee.
You might be robbed.
A tree might fall on you.






You really need a course in elementary probability and statistics...

...AND I'M NOT GOING TO TEACH IT.
​

​

 

[von_Bismarck]

*beats head against wall*

Dear god.

You probably shouldn't leave home today.

You might be killed in an automobile accident.
You might be killed crossing the street.
You might be bitten by a snake.
You could contract a fatal disease.
You might be stung by a bee.
You might be robbed.
A tree might fall on you.






You really need a course in elementary probability and statistics...

...AND I'M NOT GOING TO TEACH IT.
​

​

Chin up. Maybe some day you'll have an original thought worth reading.

But the probability isn't very high.

 

[Hal9000_]

Chin up. Maybe some day you'll have an original thought worth reading.

But the probability isn't very high.

And develop a sense of humor?

What does that little parable have to do with anything tryfail mentioned?

It's simply an analogy of anthropogenic climate change denial.

The ending is the best:


"First Mate: “Captain, the ship is sinking, and it turns out we only have lifeboats for some of the passengers. Should we abandon ship?”

Captain: “Well, tell the first-class passengers they might want to put on life jackets and get in the lifeboats. The passengers in steerage can fend for themselves. Also, build a wall between the first-class passengers and everyone else.”


Radio operator: “Captain, I’ve sent out an SOS, but it turns out there’s no one out there to help us.”

Rich passenger: “Maybe we could build a plane and fly a couple of us to another ship.”

Captain: “Yes, let’s go.”

First Mate, helmsman, and lookout: “Wait, doesn’t tradition say the captain should go down with his ship?”

Captain: “Not anymore. I’m out of here. Also, it’s all your fault for not warning me in time.”


https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/climate-change-and-the-titanic/

 

[gunthernehmen]

And develop a sense of humor?

What does that little parable have to do with anything tryfail mentioned?

It's simply an analogy of anthropogenic climate change denial.

The ending is the best:


"First Mate: “Captain, the ship is sinking, and it turns out we only have lifeboats for some of the passengers. Should we abandon ship?”

Captain: “Well, tell the first-class passengers they might want to put on life jackets and get in the lifeboats. The passengers in steerage can fend for themselves. Also, build a wall between the first-class passengers and everyone else.”


Radio operator: “Captain, I’ve sent out an SOS, but it turns out there’s no one out there to help us.”

Rich passenger: “Maybe we could build a plane and fly a couple of us to another ship.”

Captain: “Yes, let’s go.”

First Mate, helmsman, and lookout: “Wait, doesn’t tradition say the captain should go down with his ship?”

Captain: “Not anymore. I’m out of here. Also, it’s all your fault for not warning me in time.”


https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/climate-change-and-the-titanic/

And still you have no practical suggestions for how to fix the problem other than making nasty remarks to or about the "deniers". That'll help.

 

[Hal9000_]

And still you have no practical suggestions for how to fix the problem other than making nasty remarks to or about the "deniers". That'll help.

Says you!

If humanity created the problem , humanity can fix it.

It's called optimism.

 

[phrodeau]

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_12/2369001/180320-largest-air-purifier-mc-13292_bf3eb34ea90a609f7304bed71297fb0f.fit-760w.JPGhttps://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/skyscraper-sized-air-purifier-world-s-tallest-ncna858436

It may look like just another giant smokestack, but a 200-foot tower in the central Chinese city of Xi’an was built to pull deadly pollutants from the air rather than add more. And preliminary research shows the tower — which some are calling the world’s largest air purifier — has cut air pollution significantly across a broad swath of the surrounding area.

“I like to tell my students that we don’t need to be medical doctors to save lives,” said Dr. David Pui, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Minnesota and one of the researchers. “If we can just reduce the air pollution in major metropolitan areas by 20 percent, for example, we can save tens of thousands of lives each year.”

Built in 2016, the $2 million Xi’an tower, dubbed the solar-assisted large-scale cleaning system, stands atop an enormous glass-roofed greenhouse. Sunlight heats the air within the greenhouse, Pui said, causing it to rise through the tower, where a series of air filters trap soot and other noxious particles.

In addition to a proposed second tower in Xi’an, which would stand 984 feet tall, there are ongoing discussions about building massive air purifiers in the Chinese cities of Guanzhong, Hebei, and Henan.

Pui called the towers an important advance in the fight against bad air, saying “I hope that people will realize that this is a really effective and cheap way to solve the PM2.5 problem — and later on, the [carbon dioxide] problem — for the benefit of mankind.”

 

[gunthernehmen]

Says you!

If humanity created the problem , humanity can fix it.

It's called optimism.

Then advocate for clean, modern, nuclear power, thus reducing our use of fossil fuels.

That at least reduces our carbon output.

I do think your plans to terraform Terra are silly at best and catastrophic at worst. But there's certainly no harm in weaning off of fossil fuels to the degree we can.

 

[Hal9000_]

clean, modern, nuclear power

Uranium mines are clean? Then we have that pesky refinement. Then we have the astronomical costs of building commercial nuclear power plants. Not to mention very high operating expenses. Then we have long term waste storage.

The last plant to open in the US took over 40 years to build. (Watts Bar Reactor #2).

Scaling down and building several smaller plants doesn't seem like a good idea, either, because of refueling and waste storage.

 

[trysail]

RCP8.5, in itself, is laughably improbable (and everybody knows it).



Climate Change: What's The Worst Case?

by Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (emerita)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union

"...It has been argued here that a useful criterion for a plausible (credible) worst-case climate outcome is that at most one borderline implausible assumption – defined as an assumption where experts disagree as to whether or not it is plausible – is included in developing the scenario. Using this criterion, the following summarizes my assessment of the plausible (credible) worst-case climate outcomes, based upon our current background knowledge:

- The largest rates of warming that are often cited in impact assessment analyses (e.g. 4.5 or 5°C) rely on climate models being driven by a borderline implausible concentration/emission scenarios (RCP8.5).

- The IPCC AR5 (2013) likely range of warming at the end of the 21st century has a top-range value of 3.1° C, if the RCP8.5-derived values are eliminated. Even the more moderate amount of warming of 3.1°C relies on climate models with values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity that are larger than can be defended based on analysis of historical climate change. Further, these rates of warming explicitly assume that the climate of the 21st century will be driven solely by anthropogenic changes to the atmospheric concentration, neglecting 21st century variations in the sun and solar indirect effects, volcanic eruptions, and multi-decadal to millennial scale ocean oscillations. Natural processes have the potential to counteract or amplify the impacts of any manmade warming.

- Estimates of 21st century sea level rise exceeding 1 m require at least one borderline implausible or very weakly justified assumption. Allowing for one borderline implausible assumption in the sea level rise projection produces high-end estimates of sea level rise of 1.1 to 1.6 m. Higher estimates are produced using multiple borderline implausible or very weakly justified assumptions. The most extreme of the published worst-case scenarios require a cascade of events, each of which are extremely unlikely to borderline impossible based on our current knowledge base. However, given the substantial uncertainties and unknowns surrounding ice sheet dynamics, these scenarios should not be rejected as impossible..."
​

more...



​

​

 

[Hal9000_]

"European and US scientists have cleared up a point that has been nagging away at climate science for decades: not only is the planet warming faster than at any time in the last 2,000 years, but this unique climate change really does have neither a historic precedent nor a natural cause.

Other historic changes – the so-called Medieval Warm Period and then the “Little Ice Age” that marked the 17th to the 19th centuries – were not global. The only period in which the world’s climate has changed, everywhere and at the same time, is right now."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/scientists-definitively-debunk-the-biggest-climate-change-lie/

 

[RobDownSouth]

Then advocate for clean, modern, nuclear power, thus reducing our use of fossil fuels.

Go over to Netflix and watch the Chernobyl mini-series. 5 episodes. See if that doesn't change your opinion.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Uranium mines are clean? Then we have that pesky refinement. Then we have the astronomical costs of building commercial nuclear power plants. Not to mention very high operating expenses. Then we have long term waste storage.

The last plant to open in the US took over 40 years to build. (Watts Bar Reactor #2).

Scaling down and building several smaller plants doesn't seem like a good idea, either, because of refueling and waste storage.

Strip mining Asia for the materials to create sufficient solar panels for the entire world is clean? Btw, there aren't enough of those raw materials to DO that, even if we extracted every last ounce.

We don't have those clean, modern, nuclear power plants because luddites like you block them.

 

[Hal9000_]

Strip mining Asia for the materials to create sufficient solar panels for the entire world is clean? Btw, there aren't enough of those raw materials to DO that, even if we extracted every last ounce.

We don't have those clean, modern, nuclear power plants because luddites like you block them.

Solar panels are the only solution? Solar power only uses photoelectric panels?

Market forces are the reasons nuclear plants are not cost effective.

The only good thing about nuclear power is energy availability.

Back to storage.

Aluminum ion batteries might be part of the answer.

https://www.designnews.com/electronics-test/can-aluminum-take-us-beyond-lithium/44692193958697

 

[gunthernehmen]

Solar panels are the only solution? Solar power only uses photoelectric panels?

Market forces are the reasons nuclear plants are not cost effective.

The only good thing about nuclear power is energy availability.

Back to storage.

Aluminum ion batteries might be part of the answer.

https://www.designnews.com/electronics-test/can-aluminum-take-us-beyond-lithium/44692193958697

Nuclear plants are expensive because luddites have contrived the laws to force it so. It's an artificial condition that can be corrected. The same is true with the management of nuclear waste.

As for your storage, you can't store what you can't generate and you can't generate enough power for an industrial civilization using windmills and solar farms. Increasing hydro will destroy what's left of the rivers and lakes. Tidal generators will destroy the marine environments where they're located AND change weather patterns. For the better? For the worse? Let's roll the dice, shall we?

 

[Hal9000_]

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_12/2369001/180320-largest-air-purifier-mc-13292_bf3eb34ea90a609f7304bed71297fb0f.fit-760w.JPGhttps://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/skyscraper-sized-air-purifier-world-s-tallest-ncna858436

It's impossible! Won't work! Not practical!

Luddite!

The only technology that is real is nuclear power!

Those pesky safety laws are the problem!

 

[gunthernehmen]

It's impossible! Won't work! Not practical!

Luddite!

The only technology that is real is nuclear power!

Those pesky safety laws are the problem!

You could power that sucker real good if you had a nearby nuke.

So, what are you going to do with all the carbon?

 

[von_Bismarck]

I recently posted this to a different thread.

The Promise of Direct Air Capture: Making Stuff Out of Thin Air

https://singularityhub.com/2019/08/...ect-air-capture-making-stuff-out-of-thin-air/

Lots of processes and products use CO2 at industrial scales. Direct air capture makes taking CO2 out of the atmosphere profitable.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I recently posted this to a different thread.

The Promise of Direct Air Capture: Making Stuff Out of Thin Air

https://singularityhub.com/2019/08/...ect-air-capture-making-stuff-out-of-thin-air/

Lots of processes and products use CO2 at industrial scales. Direct air capture makes taking CO2 out of the atmosphere profitable.

From your description it sounds great. I have no issue with making things to be used. I'm not so enthusiastic about pumping it into the ground, but if it can be turned into products or raw materials for us to use then great.

I reserve opinion on whether it would make a difference on an industrial scale but the general idea sounds good.

 

[Conager]

Michael Mann (whose falsified "hockey stick" graph underpins both Phrodeau's religion and the bulk of his arguments here) has been ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to pay all of Dr Tim Bell's attorney fees as Mann slinks away from the libel suit that he had filed.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/3c2f34e2d38e292ce44f3f99cecade23/tenor.gif?itemid=11353836

 

[RobDownSouth]

Michael Mann (whose falsified "hockey stick" graph underpins both Phrodeau's religion and the bulk of his arguments here) has been ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to pay all of Dr Tim Bell's attorney fees as Mann slinks away from the libel suit that he had filed.

Climate Change Denialist Refudiation #16: When Shitbags Claim "Teh Hockey Stick Is Broken!"

All 197 Climate Change Denialist Arguments Refudiated HERE

Keep them coming, shrimptoast.

 

[phrodeau]

Michael Mann (whose falsified "hockey stick" graph underpins both Phrodeau's religion and the bulk of his arguments here) has been ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to pay all of Dr Tim Bell's attorney fees as Mann slinks away from the libel suit that he had filed.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/3c2f34e2d38e292ce44f3f99cecade23/tenor.gif?itemid=11353836

It’s Tim Ball, not Bell, and he’s a well-known nutjob.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/

After Weaver (and a lawyer) sent a complaint to the website that had published the article, it was retracted, and Ball acknowledged some errors in an apology letter a couple of months later. But Weaver also filed a libel suit centered on the assertions that he was an unqualified and corrupt researcher.

In his defense, Ball argued that the article was obviously opinion and was mostly about climate scientists as a whole rather than Weaver, specifically. Curiously, he also challenged the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s jurisdiction on the basis that there was no evidence anyone in British Columbia read the article (other than Andrew Weaver).

Last week, the court decided in favor of Ball, the author of the article. The reasoning is somewhat surprising. Partly, the judge found that many of the article’s accusations could be read as complaints about the system of science and education—of which Weaver was just a part—rather than specifically alleging flaws in Weaver’s professional character.

But the judge also decided that the derogatory statements aimed more clearly at Weaver failed to meet the legal standard for defamation. His reason? No one could take them seriously. Citing a list of careless inaccuracies in Ball’s article, the judge said it lacked “a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.”

 

[gunthernehmen]

...
All 197 Climate Change Denialist Arguments Refudiated HERE

Channeling Sarah Palin?

 

[FGB]

Well.

I have yawned my way through both sides of the climate change argument and see no reason to change my mind o the future climate.

(Full disclosure I start out from a Biblical viewpoint added to my my own research in to ancient history and climatology and a crap load of other fields that I can't even remember the names these days.)

I have watched the seasons that was so radically different when I was a small child start to blend together in to almost one...a warmer one on the whole.

This year I had to mow my yard all winter long. Where did those below 20 deg.F days every February that we had until the early nineties go?

I see that we are in yet another upswing of warming and violate climate change and are likely to remain there for several centuries keeping in mind that when the shit really hits the fan and no one knows when that will happen, and when it does we probably will have a sudden reversal of world changing climate that will so far make our weather to date will seem tame.


Now, I am sixty three years old so I am likely going to be dead when it happens (I HOPE!) But unless the people are prepared Millions in the coming years (decades / centuries)are going to die.

It doesn't matter how... there are many ways and dead is dead.

As a nation we need to start engineering housing and cities for the future NOW. Either houses are going to have to be designed a hell of a lot tougher or built where the weather can't fuck them up. AND Insulation HAS got to improve.


Water storage in some areas is going to be necessary.

Remember tornadoes and hurricanes and all manner of bad weather is going to increase. Get the fuck away from large bodies of coastal water, earthquake zones and such dangerous areas. Is there was water or ice there in the last 80,000 years or so move somewhere else.

Build at least 250 ft above sea level. In the side of of a hill...even better rock works good.

Now you can laugh, point and ridicule ...BUT when you are an old man or woman and this stuff is happening remember FGB told you so back in 2019.