41–50 of 293 posts
I'd think there are better sources for reading about climate change than an author one who must admit "I didn’t mention nuclear because I don’t know much about it."
I'd wager that a good chunk of our problems today originates from policymaking on the basis of people who don't know, or don't admit, what they don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of science studies, papers and reports disagree with you. Humans can and do have a huge impact on the world.
Since when number of publications became the measure of truth? There were numerous publications before Leonardo since Aristotle that flies have 8 legs. They all still have 6 though. Humans are nothing in impact comparing to a single volcano.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that slide presentation is a masterpiece in how to deceive engineers. He's not looking at it "as an engineer," he's looking at everything with preconceived notions and trying to cherry pick his way to his conclusion.
That's fairly ad hominem. Can you give some examples?
Basically all the "data" and arguments that he's presenting are cherry picked to be on the edge of plausibility, but as soon as you poke at them at all they fall part. It's really just a standard piece of denialist schlock.
For example on slide 4 look at his plot and compare to the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Wa...
It's a bunch of canned and repeated arguments that are easily shot down, but doing each one takes so much time. It's like "debating" a creationist, shooting down an argument means that many more easily shot down arguments come right back up, with the denialist side somehow never loosing credibility while trying to assail the credibility of others.
If somebody finds that slide deck interesting, please read other data too, it's a completely biased picture, meant to trick people. Something balanced like the IPCC will be far more solid information, with proper citations, that can be backed up.
Technologist can do approximately the same thing about the climate change, that our Sun can do about the average temperature in the Milky Way. Keep calm and carry on! Humanity is not a geological force on this planet. UPD: Lovely stockpile of relevant information though. But I have a better one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfeytbHBPFM . Snows always melt. Look at glaciology data, dudes!
You're absolutely wrong. Here are two examples of human activity having global, negative effects: 1. Our use of CFCs caused global ozone depletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Antarctic_ozon... 2. Our use of leaded gas caused global lead poisoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History_of_cont...
I look at the human-caused part of climate change as a billion or so smaller and easier-to-solve (but still hard) problems. Each one of these billions of problems is a person like you and me who acts without truly knowing what they are doing. Not in the sense of faking our way through life, but that we have only a superficial awareness of the consequences of our habitual or culturally-driven actions. This makes clima…
On a fundamental level, one can learn the discipline of systems thinking. Permaculture is an example of systems thinking with the ethics of Earth Care, People Care, & Fair Share. It may also help you become a more effective & well rounded technologist.
What books do you recommend for learning more about systems thinking? This is the list that I'm using: http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/giftlist/11TF5E15VQZ82
Here's some books that I read & recommend re: applied systems thinking & ecosystems.
http://www.amazon.com/Permaculture-Principles-Pathways-beyon...
http://www.amazon.com/Edible-Forest-Gardens-2-set/dp/1890132...
http://www.amazon.com/One-Straw-Revolution-Introduction-Natu...
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Colum...
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/03...
http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Revi...
http://www.newsociety.com/Books/D/Decline-and-Fall
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...
http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Social-Brain-Michael-Gra...
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Scratch-Making-Relationship-Rules/...
I look at the human-caused part of climate change as a billion or so smaller and easier-to-solve (but still hard) problems. Each one of these billions of problems is a person like you and me who acts without truly knowing what they are doing. Not in the sense of faking our way through life, but that we have only a superficial awareness of the consequences of our habitual or culturally-driven actions. This makes clima…
Utility bills and a carbon tax are the only feedback you need. All the rest is politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of science studies, papers and reports disagree with you. Humans can and do have a huge impact on the world.
Since when number of publications became the measure of truth? There were numerous publications before Leonardo since Aristotle that flies have 8 legs. They all still have 6 though. Humans are nothing in impact comparing to a single volcano.
This is a myth which you can easily disprove yourself with a little research.
If a single volcano vastly dwarfs human eCO2 output, then surely measurements of atmosphere eCO2 levels in years volcanos erupted will show significant spikes in atmosphere eCO2 concentration?
Sources: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU....
Globally, cars and trucks alone are responsible for about 15 times the CO2 emissions of all volcanos and that number is still growing.
Consider the CO2 record of the past few years: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
From that, you would not pick that the largest volanic emissions of CO2 over that range occurred in 1980 and 1991 or shortly around those times.
I still like Burt Rutan's take on the AGW question ( http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf ). He looks at it as an engineer, using generally-accepted data. His conclusion is that the alarmists are wrong.
So from slide 2 of that link: Note, the green life along the Nile river and the dead desert elsewhere. When co2 is greater in the atmosphere, plants need less water to thrive. When dinosaurs roamed we had 3 to 5 times current co2 and planet was nearly all green, pole-to-pole Near catastrophe when co2 declined to 180 ppm, since below 150 ppm plants, then animals die. If you promote a green healthy planet, then you sho…
Genuinely embarrassing as a key argument. He neglects to mention that sea levels fluctuated 50-150m higher during the period of the dinosaurs!
God knows how many major cities around the world are coastal.
This is the effect on the San Francisco Bay Area of a 1.5m sea level rise plus 1m storm surge:
http://sfist.com/2015/07/31/mapping_the_projected_8_foot_sea...
I still like Burt Rutan's take on the AGW question ( http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf ). He looks at it as an engineer, using generally-accepted data. His conclusion is that the alarmists are wrong.
Well, you're not wrong -- he's chosen a goal, and desperately tries to fit his processes to accommodate it. It's a shame he couldn't have tried looking at it as a scientist.