Article on Flight Shaming and Carbon Emission
11-25-2019 | 10:58 AM
#51
Line Holder
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 866
Likes: 37
From: Guppy
Really? A single Time article?
Here's a peer-reviewed report that shows the actual distribution of science in the 1970s.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...2008BAMS2370.1
Here's a peer-reviewed report that shows the actual distribution of science in the 1970s.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...2008BAMS2370.1
11-25-2019 | 12:53 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,568
Likes: 316
From: Sitting SC at the Five Towns
That’s a Time magazine cover. Look up the definition of sensationalist media.
Any links to peer-reviewed journals that predict “global cooling?”
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4110
Any links to peer-reviewed journals that predict “global cooling?”
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=4110
11-25-2019 | 02:27 PM
#53
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
WG3 was written specifically to look at the impacts and mitigation strategies. Public policy is a massive part of that, so of course it has guidance to that end. It's also not remotely the same thing as WG1, which is the Physical Science Basis. Go look at the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed citations in WG1 and see how many of them have political guidance. The answer will be close to, if not, zero.
There is a functional difference between science and policy. The IPCC doesn't hide from that at all. It's why they compile three different reports. One that describes the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contains over 5,000 peer-reviewed citations of scientific papers, one that discusses impacts and vulnerabilities, and one that discusses mitigation. It's an exceptionally comprehensive document that synthesizes existing knowledge on the topic across a wide range of disciplines, ranging from the physical sciences to social sciences and public policy. Necessarily, there will be discussions of appropriate methods for dealing with the impacts of climate change. That isn't led by physical scientists, it's led by social scientists/policymakers.
What you're saying is a strawman, because climate scientists, that is, climatologists, atmospheric scientists, physicists, etc. are not the ones preparing WG3. They may be tangentially involved, but it's as a function of their research in their academic discipline.
I'm fine with nuclear as a stopgap, but fundamentally it suffers from the same issues that fossil fuels do. The emphasis needs to transition away from non-renewables.
There is a functional difference between science and policy. The IPCC doesn't hide from that at all. It's why they compile three different reports. One that describes the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contains over 5,000 peer-reviewed citations of scientific papers, one that discusses impacts and vulnerabilities, and one that discusses mitigation. It's an exceptionally comprehensive document that synthesizes existing knowledge on the topic across a wide range of disciplines, ranging from the physical sciences to social sciences and public policy. Necessarily, there will be discussions of appropriate methods for dealing with the impacts of climate change. That isn't led by physical scientists, it's led by social scientists/policymakers.
What you're saying is a strawman, because climate scientists, that is, climatologists, atmospheric scientists, physicists, etc. are not the ones preparing WG3. They may be tangentially involved, but it's as a function of their research in their academic discipline.
I'm fine with nuclear as a stopgap, but fundamentally it suffers from the same issues that fossil fuels do. The emphasis needs to transition away from non-renewables.
11-25-2019 | 05:33 PM
#57
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Well, they don't exist yet, the technology hasn't been invented. The only promising idea is coming from Caltech, with their space based solar array. If we build the space elevator we can make this possible. https://www.spacesolar.caltech.edu/
11-25-2019 | 05:46 PM
#58
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Well, they don't exist yet, the technology hasn't been invented. The only promising idea is coming from Caltech, with their space based solar array. If we build the space elevator we can make this possible. https://www.spacesolar.caltech.edu/
The required tensile strength of the tether (which is non-negotiable based on orbital mechanics) far exceeds the strength of any available construction material.
They'd have to come up with some really exotic molecular structures, which can then be produced on a vast scale with appropriate economics. And can survive in space (hot, cold, radiation, UV, etc) with strength and durability intact. May not be possible this century.
Could well happen eventually, but there are too many hurdles to consider this a valid course of action to pursue near-term. And the tether anchor needs to be in a remote area, in case it ever gets cut (large meteor impact)... that would be a whole lot of mass coming down with a lot of potential energy.
11-26-2019 | 10:26 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
Great idea, and would be a game changer for anything space related, just one little problem...
The required tensile strength of the tether (which is non-negotiable based on orbital mechanics) far exceeds the strength of any available construction material.
They'd have to come up with some really exotic molecular structures, which can then be produced on a vast scale with appropriate economics. And can survive in space (hot, cold, radiation, UV, etc) with strength and durability intact. May not be possible this century.
Could well happen eventually, but there are too many hurdles to consider this a valid course of action to pursue near-term. And the tether anchor needs to be in a remote area, in case it ever gets cut (large meteor impact)... that would be a whole lot of mass coming down with a lot of potential energy.
The required tensile strength of the tether (which is non-negotiable based on orbital mechanics) far exceeds the strength of any available construction material.
They'd have to come up with some really exotic molecular structures, which can then be produced on a vast scale with appropriate economics. And can survive in space (hot, cold, radiation, UV, etc) with strength and durability intact. May not be possible this century.
Could well happen eventually, but there are too many hurdles to consider this a valid course of action to pursue near-term. And the tether anchor needs to be in a remote area, in case it ever gets cut (large meteor impact)... that would be a whole lot of mass coming down with a lot of potential energy.
11-29-2019 | 06:34 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,888
Likes: 0
Really? A single Time article?
Here's a peer-reviewed report that shows the actual distribution of science in the 1970s.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...2008BAMS2370.1
Here's a peer-reviewed report that shows the actual distribution of science in the 1970s.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...2008BAMS2370.1
http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/3_2.png
