|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I also think people underestimate the loss of face the US gets here. Paris was the first time the entire world finally came together as a whole to improve the carbon emissions situation after 50 years (!) of scientists trying to shout at us that we should. Now the US leaves it for 'reasons' which include 'getting a better deal' and 'renegotiating'. It's really not a good look.
|
United States44291 Posts
On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that.
You're wrong on both the costs and the benefits.
|
On June 02 2017 07:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. You're wrong on both the costs and the benefits.
QED?
This is the kind of shit that would make the most egregiously unethical televangelist blush.
|
On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800
Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not.
By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs.
|
On June 02 2017 07:30 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I also think people underestimate the loss of face the US gets here. Paris was the first time the entire world finally came together as a whole to improve the carbon emissions situation after 50 years (!) of scientists trying to shout at us that we should. Now the US leaves it for 'reasons' which include 'getting a better deal' and 'renegotiating'. It's really not a good look.
To paraphrase myself:
This represents American patriotism in action very accurately: Fuck over anyone that doesn't see things your way. Use whatever means possible. Do you see now how that wasn't some excessively dark statement? This is what they do. It is typical US behaviour on just about anything pertaining global issues.
|
On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs.
I'm telling you, a good chunk of this global warming stuff is hardly distinguishable from religion. There are good, scientific arguments to be made, but I'm not seeing them around here.
|
On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs.
I was pointing out that the industry is rapidly growing and that solar energy is a solid response to getting over fossil fuels... both of which (I think) are counterexamples to your argument that solar hype is "poorly informed" and implied that it's not actually "doing good".
|
On June 02 2017 07:17 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:13 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:11 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 07:04 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 Toadesstern wrote:On June 02 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:
Hardly. I stated exactly what I thought about Trump's speech. I also said my aside to why Trump's lies are somewhat mitigated in current circumstances. I can't help you if you refuse to admit the point. I doubly can't help you if you want to push for bad faith (I really do think and argue that this was the right course of action for the future). So if you can't see through the reasons, and pretend it's all objective falsities out here, you'll get about as much debate as you deserve. i mean there's even coal companies that urged Trump to not quit the deal because they think it will hurt them. And we're talking money here and not some prospects about the (a bit more far away) future: Oil majors Shell and ExxonMobil Corp supported the Paris pact. Several big coal companies, including Cloud Peak Energy, had publicly urged Trump to stay in the deal as a way to help protect the industry's mining interests overseas, though others asked Trump to exit the accord to help ease regulatory pressures on domestic miners. Sure it's not a clear picture as you have people going both ways but if you have people going both ways WITHIN the coal industry you already know how the rest of the world minus the maybe ~15-20% on the far right in the US sees it. I think it's a good decision despite splits in coal corporation opinions. Also, as my liberal friends are fond of pointing out, certain multinationals you mentioned have conflicts of interest. For example, they want to avoid punitive measures enacted abroad for their support, others are big natural gas producers that are favored in this deal, and there's a whole lot of subsidies and incentives up for grabs in the deal. well yeah but you mention punitive measures yourself. With politicians over here already talking about only allowing stuff that's up to EU standards when it comes to this... wasn't a big part of Trump's agenda that he wants to reduce the trade deficit? How do you end up thinking this is good if you believe punitive measures could be a thing I'm trying to gather your point but I can't. Can you rephrase? you mention that some of the coal corporations are in favor of the paris accord because they're afraid of punitive actions from the EU / China, etc. One of the big issues for Trump is that he wants to reduce the trade deficit. If punitive actions actually happen that surely will hurt American exports making the trade deficit only worse, won't it? The coal corporations that disagree with the paris accord would be the ones that are only making business inside the US while the ones that wanted Trump to keep it up would be the ones that deal abroad as well according to you if I understood you correctly?
If their fears were realized, it would probably hurt the trade deficit. Everyone can debate if saving jobs and growing the economy is worth it on the balance.
|
On June 02 2017 07:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs. I'm telling you, a good chunk of this global warming stuff is hardly distinguishable from religion. There are good, scientific arguments to be made, but I'm not seeing them around here.
The "global warming stuff" is statistics and reports from NASA and other scientific centers and research facilities, from experts who have accumulated empirical data for decades and have identified models, trends, and patterns and can therefore make powerful predictions based on these facts. All this research is published and accepted by an overwhelming scientific consensus.
How is any of that "hardly distinguishable from religion"?
Plenty of TLers are literally posting those resources and explanations in this very thread to supplement their arguments, so how on earth are they "not being seen around here"? Surely you're not just ignoring every single website or report posted, right?
|
On June 02 2017 07:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:02 LuckyFool wrote:
Trump was speaking to his base 100% during that speech earlier today, and fulfilling a major campaign promise. Not surprised at all. Also not surprised by the progressive response. The usual suspects in my social media circles were crying a river, same apocalyptic climate change talking points you often hear about how rising sea levels will end mankind as we know it and how we're a stones throw away from runaway global warming etc.
I find the timing of this announcement interesting. Trump could have withdrew on day 1, but waited 4 months and after the EU trip to announce. If he was truly interested in a renegotiation of the deal it would have been something he prioritized sooner or at least talking about. Took years to get this existing deal in place. This will definitely be a 2020 campaign issue for sure. I was worried at the delay. I thought Ivanka & allies would prevail. Maybe part of the delay is their firm opposition, or maybe Trump's team just want to space the good news of fulfilled campaign promises to reap multiple positive media cycles for their base. Sounds like someone should have told you that 70% of Americans disagreed with the decision by now, right? How many knew what the decision entailed? We talked Russia hacking enough that 59% of Dems believed Russia tampered with the actual vote despite no evidence. Give Trump et al some time to explain costs and get back to me. Free lunch is about as popular as freely just deciding to limiting pollution. Until you see the price tag. No one cares dude. Do you think everyone who said they approved of Trump pulling out knew what the decision entailed?
Then I agree with your new position. Nobody cares about the polls on this for that reason.
|
On June 02 2017 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:39 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs. I'm telling you, a good chunk of this global warming stuff is hardly distinguishable from religion. There are good, scientific arguments to be made, but I'm not seeing them around here. The "global warming stuff" is statistics and reports from NASA and other scientific centers and research facilities, from experts who have accumulated empirical data for decades and have identified models, trends, and patterns and can therefore make powerful predictions based on these facts. All this research is published and accepted by an overwhelming scientific consensus. How is any of that "hardly distinguishable from religion"? Plenty of TLers are literally posting those resources and explanations in this very thread to supplement their arguments, so how on earth are they "not being seen around here"? Surely you're not just ignoring every single website or report posted, right?
Nothing that has been posted has been directly on point to the issue of whether what Americans would have gotten out of the Paris Accords is worth the cost. I've been asking a very limited question.
|
On June 02 2017 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs. I was pointing out that the industry is rapidly growing and that solar energy is a solid response to getting over fossil fuels... both of which (I think) are counterexamples to your argument that solar hype is "poorly informed" and implied that it's not actually "doing good".
Want to measure instead in power generation per dollar subsidy? Or per job created? All the measures you cited might as well be measures of money spent or ease of getting a large percentage increase on a small number.
Not to mention this is all completely missing the point about solar scams.
|
On June 02 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:39 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs. I'm telling you, a good chunk of this global warming stuff is hardly distinguishable from religion. There are good, scientific arguments to be made, but I'm not seeing them around here. The "global warming stuff" is statistics and reports from NASA and other scientific centers and research facilities, from experts who have accumulated empirical data for decades and have identified models, trends, and patterns and can therefore make powerful predictions based on these facts. All this research is published and accepted by an overwhelming scientific consensus. How is any of that "hardly distinguishable from religion"? Plenty of TLers are literally posting those resources and explanations in this very thread to supplement their arguments, so how on earth are they "not being seen around here"? Surely you're not just ignoring every single website or report posted, right? Nothing that has been posted has been directly on point to the issue of whether what Americans would have gotten out of the Paris Accords is worth the cost. I've been asking a very limited question.
Then would it be fair to think your statement should be very limited to the fact that you feel people aren't addressing your specific question, rather than generalizing and saying that "a good chunk of this global warming stuff is hardly distinguishable from religion"? Surely that's much broader and more dismissive (and more likely to get you pegged as anti-scientific) than "I'm still waiting for someone to show me some data/ cost projections on whether or not pulling out of Paris has truly hurt us"?
|
On June 02 2017 07:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs. I was pointing out that the industry is rapidly growing and that solar energy is a solid response to getting over fossil fuels... both of which (I think) are counterexamples to your argument that solar hype is "poorly informed" and implied that it's not actually "doing good". Want to measure instead in power generation per dollar subsidy? Or per job created? All the measures you cited might as well be measures of money spent or ease of getting a large percentage increase on a small number. Not to mention this is all completely missing the point about solar scams.
How frequent are solar scams and how much of the solar industry is tied up in those scams? It sounds like you're very willing to dismiss the entirety of solar energy just because of a few bad apples panels.
|
On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that.
Well here's science to the science denier. To warm the atmosphere by 0.17C, just considering air is the math below. In reality you also have to warm up the oceans, and because water has ~1000x the heat capacity of air, you also have to take that into account when doing actual climate studies. But here's a simple one.
There's 5.15x10^18 kg of air in the atmosphere. Specific heat capacity of air is roughly 1KJ/kg, so that gets us 5.15x10^18 KJ of energy.
But, what is that in a unit the average person can imagine?
Little Boy was about 15 kilotons of TNT, 63TJ of energy release. You'd need to detonate 817,460,317 of those bombs inside heatsinks (so that all the thermal energy gets transferred to the atmosphere of course) to get equivalent heating. Evenly distributed, that is one bomb every 0.624 square kilometers. (Sidenote, this kills all surface life, and probably most ocean life as well on earth).
Now, adding energy to a system increases entropy(inherent randomness), and when you add that much energy to a system, you get significantly stronger extremes. You can safely assume that whatever weather based phenomena(droughts, heatwaves, storms, hurricanes, snow, hail etc.) will be stronger in their extremes than ever before.
|
|
|
France wasting no time draining that sweet US brain
'To all scientist and entrepreneurs, who were disappointed by the decision of the US, I say they will find in France a second homeland. I call on them, come and work here with us'
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL
|
On June 02 2017 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:
I don't know what DGAF means. There's also the problem that while i agree that BS like solar roads etc shouldn't be even considered, there's plenty of companies making solar panels etc. Not everyone in the solar sector is fake. DGAF = don't give a fuck And yet they ride off that high of "omg jobs n green and innovation" because the hype is too good for enticing the poorly informed, well-meaning individuals who want to think they're doing good. Some of those work in government. Subsidies for genuinely valuable green tech is good, but needs far more accountability. Not just allowing subsidy queens to line their pockets would be desirable. What makes you think they're doing bad? Solar energy is fantastic, and it's definitely been helpful for job growth and having less reliance on fossil fuels: "U.S. Solar Jobs Jumped Almost 25% In the Past Year" http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ "Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined ... Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000." https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#6bad6a832800 Are you going to argue that number of jobs is a valid measure of the effectiveness of subsidized industries? Throwing enough money at anything will generate jobs, feasible or not. By that logic, fuck sewing machines, seamstresses will generate more jobs. I was pointing out that the industry is rapidly growing and that solar energy is a solid response to getting over fossil fuels... both of which (I think) are counterexamples to your argument that solar hype is "poorly informed" and implied that it's not actually "doing good". Want to measure instead in power generation per dollar subsidy? Or per job created? All the measures you cited might as well be measures of money spent or ease of getting a large percentage increase on a small number. Not to mention this is all completely missing the point about solar scams. How frequent are solar scams and how much of the solar industry is tied up in those scams? It sounds like you're very willing to dismiss the entirety of solar energy just because of a few bad apples panels.
What makes you think I said we should throw it all out? I said more accountability, less feels-based subsidies of scammers.
|
On June 02 2017 08:03 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:France wasting no time draining that sweet US brain 'To all scientist and entrepreneurs, who were disappointed by the decision of the US, I say they will find in France a second homeland. I call on them, come and work here with us' https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgoodLyqKL
Well it's not like europe didn't already do that by offering things like free education and stuff. Many of them stay, too (in germany, around 50% of foreigners who got their degree).
|
On June 02 2017 07:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:26 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:09 Nebuchad wrote:On June 02 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 07:02 LuckyFool wrote:
Trump was speaking to his base 100% during that speech earlier today, and fulfilling a major campaign promise. Not surprised at all. Also not surprised by the progressive response. The usual suspects in my social media circles were crying a river, same apocalyptic climate change talking points you often hear about how rising sea levels will end mankind as we know it and how we're a stones throw away from runaway global warming etc.
I find the timing of this announcement interesting. Trump could have withdrew on day 1, but waited 4 months and after the EU trip to announce. If he was truly interested in a renegotiation of the deal it would have been something he prioritized sooner or at least talking about. Took years to get this existing deal in place. This will definitely be a 2020 campaign issue for sure. I was worried at the delay. I thought Ivanka & allies would prevail. Maybe part of the delay is their firm opposition, or maybe Trump's team just want to space the good news of fulfilled campaign promises to reap multiple positive media cycles for their base. Sounds like someone should have told you that 70% of Americans disagreed with the decision by now, right? How many knew what the decision entailed? We talked Russia hacking enough that 59% of Dems believed Russia tampered with the actual vote despite no evidence. Give Trump et al some time to explain costs and get back to me. Free lunch is about as popular as freely just deciding to limiting pollution. Until you see the price tag. No one cares dude. Do you think everyone who said they approved of Trump pulling out knew what the decision entailed? Then I agree with your new position. Nobody cares about the polls on this for that reason.
Was that supposed to sound clever? When you have to intentionally misread posts to keep a leg to stand on, it's not really a good look, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
