| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 02 2017 23:38 LegalLord wrote: To be fair, if a pointless reporter kept harassing me to try to pull out a bombshell, I'd also not talk to them. Which is the same thing he would do if there was some heat behind the story too. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18441 Posts
Hahahaha, I take back everything bad I said about greenpeace. That's awesome. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Speaking of humor: + Show Spoiler + Now what will Trump tweet to screw with this elation after another campaign promise is fulfilled? | ||
|
chocorush
696 Posts
Consider the amounts of methane trapped underneath the ice and permafrost in the arctic/antarctic regions. Given that methane has a more potent greenhouse effect than co2, is this something that is really worth gambling on the margins over? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46428 Posts
On June 02 2017 22:19 Falling wrote: There's an obvious question, and I mean this sincerely. A staggering amount of energy is the cause to the one degree increase, which is the effect. But I'm pretty sure the naysayers are wanting to know- what effect does that one degree itself (or 0.17 degree) have really? Not how do we get there but what effect is there once we do- that we know for sure? Does one degree melt all the ice caps? Does it create a spiralling increase in temperature? Does it cause the sea levels to rise x metres? Those questions are good ones, and have already been answered by the scientific community. A lot of those responses have even been posted in this very thread (like... yesterday) and yet there are still some people who don't like those answers/ don't believe the scientific community. A lot of these issues are quantifiable. For example: "The European Geosciences Union published a study in April 2016 that examined the impact of a 1.5 degree Celsius vs. a 2.0 C temperature increase by the end of the century, given what we know so far about how climate works. It found that the jump from 1.5 to 2 degrees—a third more of an increase—raises the impact by about that same fraction, very roughly, on most of the phenomena the study covered. Heat waves would last around a third longer, rain storms would be about a third more intense, the increase in sea level would be approximately that much higher and the percentage of tropical coral reefs at risk of severe degradation would be roughly that much greater. But in some cases, that extra increase in temperature makes things much more dire. At 1.5 C, the study found that tropical coral reefs stand a chance of adapting and reversing a portion of their die-off in the last half of the century. But at 2 C, the chance of recovery vanishes. Tropical corals are virtually wiped out by the year 2100. With a 1.5 C rise in temperature, the Mediterranean area is forecast to have about 9 percent less fresh water available. At 2 C, that water deficit nearly doubles. So does the decrease in wheat and maize harvest in the tropics. On a global scale, production of wheat and soy is forecast to increase with a 1.5 C temperature rise, partly because warming is favorable for farming in higher latitudes and partly because the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is largely responsible for the temperature increase, is thought to have a fertilization effect. But at 2 C, that advantage plummets by 700 percent for soy and disappears entirely for wheat." https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/ | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1967 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 02 2017 22:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote: So...Texas has massively more potential for wind and solar energy due to its size difference and geographical properties and population difference. Great. I don't really see how this translate into more efficient wind turbines. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Broadly, results > optics. And some perspective. The United States has been trimming CO2 emissions without an international mandate to do so. Paris only allegedly took effect in the last month of the period I had data for. Similarly, the United States has been building up renewable generation, particularly wind. Texas is the biggest wind generator in the US, and is likely to continue to expand its wind fleet faster than the European wind giants Spain and Germany. Notably, this happened as a state initiative under Republican governors Bush and Perry. However, there's a perception that the United States and Republicans are anti-climate and this harms the world. I'd argue this is unjust in the face of actual results. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:33 Buckyman wrote: Broadly, results > optics. And some perspective. The United States has been trimming CO2 emissions without an international mandate to do so. Paris only allegedly took effect in the last month of the period I had data for. Similarly, the United States has been building up renewable generation, particularly wind. Texas is the biggest wind generator, and is likely to continue to expand its wind fleet faster than the European wind giants Spain and Germany, regardless of Paris. Notably, this happened as a state initiative under Republican governors Bush and Perry. However, there's a perception that the United States and Republicans are anti-climate and this harms the world. I'd argue this is unjust in the face of actual results. The Republicans are pro-fossil fuels and cater to entrenched energy interests. They claim to be “free market” but want to preserve the protections afforded to current energy producers. Our energy market is already heavily influenced by the government. They are anti-climate change because the people giving them money to run for election ask them to be. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote: On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture. That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
She's been getting some blowback for this | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46428 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:33 Buckyman wrote: Broadly, results > optics. And some perspective. The United States has been trimming CO2 emissions without an international mandate to do so. Paris only allegedly took effect in the last month of the period I had data for. Similarly, the United States has been building up renewable generation, particularly wind. Texas is the biggest wind generator in the US, and is likely to continue to expand its wind fleet faster than the European wind giants Spain and Germany. Notably, this happened as a state initiative under Republican governors Bush and Perry. However, there's a perception that the United States and Republicans are anti-climate and this harms the world. I'd argue this is unjust in the face of actual results. Those actual results include the fact that Republicans have historically denied that climate change had even occurred in the first place, which then they admitted occurs but isn't expedited by humans, which then they admitted is expedited by humans but it's not a big deal. And the leader of the Republican party thought it was a hoax by the Chinese, and just pulled out of the most globally unified climate change agreement in history. So it's really no surprise that everyone thinks conservatives are dragging their feet on this; it's their MO for all things scientific. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13422 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:50 Doodsmack wrote: https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/870592129864794112 Wouldn't it be hilarious if "unmasking the leakers" ended up showing major infighting is happening through the press in his own admin and has nothing to do with "liberal insurgents" or "Obama holdouts"? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote: That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost. Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote: Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:52 ZeromuS wrote: Wouldn't it be hilarious if "unmasking the leakers" ended up showing major infighting is happening through the press in his own admin and has nothing to do with "liberal insurgents" or "Obama holdouts"? I wouldn't be shocked at all. And it seems more likely every day. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46428 Posts
On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote: Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. What is it today? Did Trump do another stupid thing in the past 24 hours, or is this still fallout from pulling out of Paris? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  21349Shuttle 1190Dewaltoss 154firebathero  83Barracks 51Sexy 43Mong 26scan(afreeca) 24Shine  19Trap 14Heroes of the Storm Other Games FrodaN1775 Beastyqt546 B2W.Neo320 Dendi276 KnowMe135 Liquid`LucifroN126 ArmadaUGS120 C9.Mang0117 QueenE75 Livibee48 Trikslyr43 |
|
Replay Cast
GSL
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Shine vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PLkBvwQ.jpg)
