Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by ETB4U, Dec 14, 2016.
Are you trying to reason an american about global warming?
Perfect white is etb4u's favourite coloUr
I've got my asbestos for protection, fam.
I don't believe it's having as much affect as certain people who make money by getting legislation passed to make lots of money off things like selling carbon credits would have you believe.
Should we care? Sure. Should we hammer legislation through over exaggerate reports? Not so much, especially when the ones rallying it seek to make profit from it.
I don't want to read it because climate science is for homosexuals.
But do you have access to sto.nato.int publications? The site just tells me to log in and doesn't even let me register ffs.
Fucking a/c at work is broken. It's about 85 degrees outside and 90 inside.
I'd kill for 85°F, it's 51 here and dropping quickly. That horrible area PGN1 lives in had a 34 degrees. And it's not even September equinox yet!
Some. Many STO working groups are classified (especially, for instance, propulsion groups in AVT). However, those reports that are unclassified should actually be freely available to download without charge - it might take some prodding around to find the PDF though.
The tenured and tenure-track faculty who author the bulk of the science in climate change would get paid the same regardless of what their results say. When you're looking for the kingpins of a conspiracy, the guys driving a 8 year old Corolla to work are an odd target.
Radiation suits are primarily to protect from inhaling radioactive material or otherwise absorbing through the skin. They don't do anything special for direct exposure to radiation, and you would achieve similar benefits by wearing UV-opaque clothing (and a lot of activewear is actually manufactured to be UV opaque, fun fact). Your presentation sounds plainly illustrative and not literal based only on the nature of radiation and radiation protection, and the difficulty in teaching the danger and social costs of something abstract like increased skin cancer risk to children.
The risk of increased UV exposure is plainly evident. If nothing else, the fact that people who live closer to the equator have darker skin despite the critical biological role of vitamin D should make that obvious. So too, the role of ozone in UV absorption is very easily demonstrated, as is the breakdown of ozone due to organohalogens. This is one of the most straightforward environmental issues I can think of (especially since there were many other hydrocarbons that could fulfil the same industrial purposes at similar cost). It seems like a very strange issue to be attacking.
I'm not sure I understand the question. You seem to phrase it as if it's a 'gotcha moment', as if the choice to eliminate CFCs was a bad thing? That is clearly not the case. Earth's albedo is not a simple thing, and it is affected by numerous other sources in addition to cloud and ice cover. The idea that one terrible potential-and-avoidable tragedy had a positive effect on a different terrible potential-and-avoidable tragedy (with separate causes that are nevertheless equally our fault) seems like a irrelevant point when, you know, you could just address the root causes of both and be done with it.
ETB4U continues to strike with his amazing logic, I see.
Unless people start getting fired or not having their tenure renewed for not getting desired results. Then they would make a lot less.
They showed a clip of a person walking outside with a radiation suit. That's almost Reefer Madness level of exaggerating.
The question is; cfcs create hole and causes problems. Then hole starts to fix which creates more problems. Are we perpetually screwed regardless of our actions?
It's almost like the planet is taking it's own corrective measures:
Does their climate change model factor in how the above affects, and will affect when it is further repaired, green house gases and climate change?
The EPA is ultimately a organ for implementing policy as directed by Congress and the President. Many postings exist at the President's leisure, and while I disagree strongly with both above actions, they are neither relevant to the point I was making. Tenure, in the academic sense, is not something that is renewed. It is something that is granted for life (or until a mandatory retirement age), barring major criminal issues or major academic fraud. The university system still produces the vast majority of climate research, which is why I was referring specifically to the university system, where jobs cannot be threatened and pay cannot be altered due to the outcome of a study.
I'm not going to bother repeating my previous post to explain why I think that was a totally reasonable thing to do.
This is nonsense. You're talking about two very-loosely coupled systems with very clear primary and secondary causes. Some tertiary coupling between them does not dramatically alter the right course of action, which is clear for both cases (elimination of CFC and carbon output).
There is no climate change model, only climate change models. The plural is significant, because attacking the problem from a single methodology is over-reliant on the modelling assumptions. A large cohort of dozens to hundreds of models is used in climate studies, each with its own unique methodology and assumptions, which results in a probability distribution of outcomes, thus mitigating the effect of modelling assumptions. These models are most often produced by university research groups, often with dozens of different universities contributing models from a single country, counted together with those produced by dozens of other countries.
Climate change models are sophisticated. Many of the more complex systems model both atmospheric and oceanic flows, the plumes from emissions sources, as well as ice and cloud formation, and may include some atmospheric chemistry. As such, all your stated effects would be captured.
One impressive demonstration of modelling fidelity I witnessed was not even in climate science, but in fluid dynamics: biological research expeditions seek out large vortices in the ocean, as these are closed material lines and therefore gather animal life for study. However, renting a ship is expensive, so they need to be planned in detail. Using an IPCC climate-change model, a team from ETH Zurich was able to correctly predict the change in the vortex layout of the Southern Pacific from a six-month old snapshot for the planning of an expedition. To be absolutely clear, such a level of fidelity is not even required for climate models to function (mean transport being more critical than specific vortex layout), and yet it worked. Many of these are more correctly full multi-physics simulations of the synoptic scale weather on Earth, than they are models.
Pls define "closed material line" and "mean transport"
I'm not talking about it, the article is.
I'm just asking are we pretty much screwed because when we try to fix something, we break something else?
No. 'Loosely coupled' means that secondary and tertiary changes in the other system are much smaller than the primary changes in the original system.
Gotcha, I'm just going to save myself time and fwd any science article I read to you so you can tell me if it's over exaggerated BS since you actually live the research life. That article makes it seem like because we're fixing one problem we're exasperating another and are therefore fucked.
Is this one classified?
Quite likely. The three classifications you will find on the NATO RTO site are "Open Access" (freely available to the public), "NATO Unclassified" (disseminable information, but which nevertheless requires permission; usually restricted to people in NATO member states), and "Other". Other includes all other classes of non-disseminable information, including classified information. That report, as you can see, is listed as "Other", and I cannot gain you access.
How do you see a tornado? It agitated dust and debris on the ground, and that dust stays retained within the vortex of the tornado. That means that we can define a closed surface around that vortex where, to a reasonable approximation, there is no mass transport across that surface. That is what a closed material line means.
Mean transport, be that of heat or mass or something else, ignores these smaller-scale issues like how mass spins around in a vortex and instead asks, given an infinite number of 'Earths' with similar initial states, what is the average rate of transport between all those instances? This is more relevant to climate, since the bulk motion of heat in the ocean is more critical than knowing if it goes in a straight line or in a spiral.
lmao, of the 2 sides of the climate change debate, you think its the academics making the money
good lord, you really are republican
hey the doctors who said cigarettes are bad for you did it so they could make THOUSANDS PER YEAR in salary
the cigarette companies were just fighting the good fight and had many valid points!
I didn't know the academics were selling carbon credits because that's definitely what I was talking about. It's even in my post you quoted. You're such a Democrat. Changing the reality of what was said.
carbon credits is a good way to reduce the incentive to pollute though
why do industries want to pollute? its cheap if you dont have to worry about cleaning up
carbon credits make it expensive, therefore making running clean look like a viable choice