If the ultimately goal is to reduce emissions, then the public needs genuine leaders to look to for inspiration - people who are actually practicing what they preach, and genuinely exploring solutions.
Removing these huckster celebrities from the forefront of the environmental movement would go a long way in getting the skeptics and fence-sitters to take the issue seriously.
So wouldn't a website that shows who the actual leaders are in this area and what actions they're taking be more effective than a website dedicated to pointing out hypocrisy? If you're a skeptic or a fence-sitter because you think the celebrities advancing the cause are hypocrites, then your logic and critical-thinking skills may need a bit of tune-up
because rich ppl are hypoctrites i should be allowed to drive my f250 to the grocery store 2 blocks away and have my AC on when its 23 degrees outside without feeling guilty gosh darnit
The Following User Says Thank You to stone hands For This Useful Post:
If you're a skeptic or a fence-sitter because you think the celebrities advancing the cause are hypocrites, then your logic and critical-thinking skills may need a bit of tune-up
Whether that's true or not is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter why people don't take matters seriously, it only matter's that they don't.
When those who are perceived to care most about a cause, don't care enough to actually change their actions, it's reasonable to expect that some people will view the cause as illegitimate. This applies to politicians, too.
So wouldn't a website that shows who the actual leaders are in this area and what actions they're taking be more effective than a website dedicated to pointing out hypocrisy? If you're a skeptic or a fence-sitter because you think the celebrities advancing the cause are hypocrites, then your logic and critical-thinking skills may need a bit of tune-up
It’s more so if the people who can afford to actually change their lives for the better will actually do the opposite why should I or any other average person even bother? Your other fluff has nothing to do with it.
because rich ppl are hypoctrites i should be allowed to drive my f250 to the grocery store 2 blocks away and have my AC on when its 23 degrees outside without feeling guilty gosh darnit
Absolutely. I am allowed should I choose to do so. It's like the tree huggers flying around the globe on planes to save the planet. Or hypocrites like Mr. Suzuki owning 4 mansions caring about the global footprint human beings are leaving
Articles like the one being discussed bother me so much. If there are 11B people in the world by 2100, honestly no one is going to give a #### about carbon footprint, since all water between the Indian Ocean and east to the edge of the Pacific will be dead. They are purposefully cherry picking a current 'hot topic', and ignoring that overpopulation will eventually be self correcting on a pretty massive scale of famine and disease, because when you eliminate 3/4 of the world's primary food source, it's going to get ugly.
They cite 200 year old theories about what will happen once population reaches a tipping point, and believe that because it hasn't happened yet, it simply won't.
The Industrial Revolution bought us time, but it will take a second revolution of similar impact to buy us more, and there seems to be none on the horizon.
Worrying about carbon, and oil spills, is all well and good, but it won't stop our grandchildren from having to watch the world burn.
Welp, it's getting late. Night!
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Quote:
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
So the IPCC has been attributing sea level rise to Antarctica, which turns out is actually gaining mass annually.
So the IPCC has been attributing sea level rise to Antarctica, which turns out is actually gaining mass annually.
Not exactly, you have a known sea level rise that isn’t being called into question. The leading theory which was supported by the preponderance of evidence is being challenged by new evidence. If this new evidence holds up to scrutiny and repeatability the new theory will be adopted and the old one discarded. And this new evidence doesn’t really challenge the underlying concept of Antarctica losing ice. It’s just saying that snowfall is currently offsetting those losses
It’s called science, this isn’t a failure of it. It’s how it’s supposed to work.
Also this from the article.
Quote:
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Last edited by GGG; 05-19-2019 at 11:12 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
So the IPCC has been attributing sea level rise to Antarctica, which turns out is actually gaining mass annually.
I may be wrong, but I think that is a little misleading. The report is much more complex than being suggested.
"We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”
They are stating that there are gains in one region of Antarctica, but losses in others. The losses are glacial ice and the gains are in snow pack. Surface snow pack is more likely to generate runoff than glacier ice. Where we need to see growth is in the glaciers and not the pack snow. It is the loss of that glacial ice that is alarming.
“If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
This is the concerning part. While there has been snow pack gains, it has not been enough to significantly counter the losses. More concerning is the inability to determine the hole in the math attribution in the IPCC report.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
The report suggests Antarctic sheet has achieved some level of balance in gains and losses, but the hole in the math suggests that if there is a shift to a negative imbalance, we're in even greater trouble than anticipated.
The Industrial Revolution bought us time, but it will take a second revolution of similar impact to buy us more, and there seems to be none on the horizon.
The Industrial Revolution bought us time, but it will take a second revolution of similar impact to buy us more, and there seems to be none on the horizon.
AI, IoT and Nano Tech is the next industrial revolution.
AI, IoT and Nano Tech is the next industrial revolution.
'Industrial' revolutions move in lock-step with gaining access to the next order of magnitude of energy density in our fuel supplies.
AI, IoT and Nanotech, if left to their own devices, will have no issue ensuring it has access to nuclear power, ensuring that it has enough energy to run itself while using the least amount of materials and energy required to secure that supply. Too bad humans are too stupid to do the same.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
This is pretty ignorant. Output-based emission intensities can be easily calculated for all sorts of industries. The question is not how are you going to make steel. The question is how can you make steel more efficiently than your competitors and maybe even receive carbon offset benefits on top of reducing your costs so as to incentivize you to be even more efficient.
Scientists found that between 40 and 60 per cent of the total global CFC-11 emissions originated from eastern China
A chemical banned around the globe for the last 30 years has made an unfortunate resurgence. And all signs, in a new study, point to China as the culprit.
Yeah I was just going to post this. Until China takes environmental issues and protection seriously, or until there's a mechanism in place to punish China for stuff like this and cooking their emissions book, I don't know if there is a solution.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
This is pretty ignorant. Output-based emission intensities can be easily calculated for all sorts of industries. The question is not how are you going to make steel. The question is how can you make steel more efficiently than your competitors and maybe even receive carbon offset benefits on top of reducing your costs so as to incentivize you to be even more efficient.
I think what he is trying to say is the challenge we have in front of us is a lot bigger and more complex than a lot of people want to admit. A huge portion of people want to think this will be solved with some very basic things like
Electric cars and Tesla's
Elimination of plastic bags, straws and single use plastic reduction
More Recycling and more efficient light bulbs, insulation etc
Those ideas are great and all but a lot of people are not thinking about the scale of the problem or how to tackle it head on.
Automobiles and their explosive growth all over the world
Billions of people coming more and more online and wanting North American style amenities and lifestyles.
The amount of steel, concrete, population growth, aircraft manufacturing and other metrics of economic growth are not aligning with what a lot of people are expecting.
Here is an article from a few months back showing the explosive level of air travel for China. 216 NEW Airports in the next 15+ years to meet expected demand of 720 million passengers by 2020.
Canada has a population target of 100 million people in the next 80 years and this is government policy. Literally tripling our population.
When I look carbon footprints I also look at human behavior. We all abuse the gains we all make from other aspects of our lives.
People generally buy larger homes, larger tv's, larger cars, more cars, larger screen phones, have more electronics. People don't repair their clothes for things anymore, just toss em and buy them new.
This is a problem and nobody has the answer. When the wealthiest guy in the world at one stage says that the finance guys are full of sh**, I believe him.
Too much money to be made pumping up some of these companies that are suppose to "SAVE" the world like Tesla, Uber, Soda Stream, Beyond Meat and other's tied to the environmental movement.
