Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    Fizrock

    + friends - friends
    662,213 link karma
    65,093 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] It wasn't just Neil and Buzz. It took 400,000 people to get us to the Moon, On This Day 1969. Thanks! Fizrock -1 points ago in space

    Whether you Columbus or not, him landing here and then spreading the word around Europe was one of the most monumental moments in history. Perhaps renaming it would make more sense.

    [–] Will The Sun Put The Brakes On Global Warming? Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    This may be unnecessary and maybe even counterproductive. If batteries can come down in price fairly quickly, there isn't much need.

    While I do agree, I feel like some companies would not be fully happy with doing it immediately, and I think some people still want loud engines.

    I hesitate here because you are talking about federal regulations trouncing states' ability to self govern. I would say let the courts do their thing first. I also think it's important for citizens in each state to participate in change, not making it all about federal processes.

    Yes, but there comes as time...

    How do you arrive at the conclusion that all the solar/wind subsidies and boondoggles, all the EV tax credits, all of the ethanol mandates, etc., etc. have little to do with climate change?

    Well those ones do, obviously. But even then its not all climate change. Politicians often love to put those out there to boost their ego and future campaigns by saying they are "green" or whatever.

    In fact, if memory serves, wind are solar are still an order of magnitude higher than nuclear.

    I think it depends how you look at the figure. I'm pretty sure most of the fatalities of Chernobyl have yet to actually die from it. Also you could include heightened suicide rates in Japan due to the Fukishima event.

    Yes, I've seen it. It naively assumes that crops will remain in the same zones they are currently grown in. In fact, northern lands become arable under warming scenarios and we handle yields by planting crops in the right places according to their requirements.

    Definitely, but the act of moving them and clearing the land for them has its own costs and footprint to consider.

    [–] To all Skeptics on this sub... Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    If man contributed to this drought, then what caused the last big droughts?

    Naturally occurring events. You will also note a period of slow warmth in that time.

    tree ring data only goes back 1250 years or so

    Actually it goes back well over 10,000 years. Paper with the 1200 year figure.

    I guess man had a hand in that too?

    Well as the earth warms, El Nino events are getting more frequent and more powerful..

    Can you prove man is making it warm faster then normal?? Have yet to see anything on that.

    Well you likely have not been paying very much attention, but there is a lot of it. For one, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and thus we are increasing the earths temperature. There are also all sorts of positive feedback factors associated with it which increase warming further. The ever helpful potholer54 has a great video on it.

    Could it be the sun cycles that change the speed in the earths temp changes?

    Well the sun obviously has an effect, and that is taken into account. Unfortunately, rising CO2 levels are more than enough to cancel out the effect of solar activity. Solar activity has been declining since the 80s, but the temperature is still going up.

    [–] Elon Musk's keynote speech at the 2017 ISSR&D Conference Fizrock 1 points ago in spacex

    Well a parachute landing on land is probably fine as well. It is probably just as safe as an ocean landing. You are correct that it reduced risk for ground (sea I guess?) crews, but the difference is that missing your target is less of a big deal with ocean landings. You don't have to worry about missing and rolling off a cliff (like a soyuz almost did).

    [–] Elon Musk's keynote speech at the 2017 ISSR&D Conference Fizrock 0 points ago in spacex

    Yes, but plenty of propulsive landings have failed, and whether they have people in them is kind of irrelevant, especially considering the Dragon 2 landings would be unlikely to be controlled by a human.

    [–] Will The Sun Put The Brakes On Global Warming? Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    I doubted your concern because you seem to bring up "alarmism" a hell of a lot more than anything else.

    As we discussed very recently, fossil fuel resource constraints effectively rule out the "extremely dangerous" RCPs.

    Yes, they rule out the extremely dangerous ones, but the others ones are still pretty gosh darn dangerous.
    As this paper pointed out,

    To limit global sea-level rise to a maximum of 1 m in the long run (i.e., beyond 2100), as proposed recently as a policy goal (26), deep emissions reductions will be required. Likely they would have to be deeper than those needed to limit global warming to 2 °C, the policy goal now supported by many countries. Our analysis further suggests that emissions reductions need to come early in this century to be effective.

    So by that paper, the 2.6° value that you showed in the other paper you linked would put sea level rise by the end of the 21st century at least over 1m, likely closer to 1.5m. That is of course not counting levels after 2100. As this paper pointed out, the exposed assets due to this level of rise is in the tens of trillions of dollars. The "Top 20" list of exposed cities that that paper contain would all have large portion of them submerged with just 0.8m in sea level rise, the absolute low estimate of sea level rise by the end of the century.

    This report from the Met Office also goes into great deal about the impact of these kinds of temperature increases on crop yields. It is divided among several different countries, and goes into detail about what AGW will do to crop yields and food security.

    This paper discusses that as well.

    The Stern Review goes into extreme depth on potential economic damage as a result of AGW.

    Notwithstanding the limitations inherent in formal integrated models, there can be no doubt that the economic risks of a ‘business as usual’ approach are very severe – and probably more severe than suggested by past models. Relying on the scientific knowledge that informed the IPCC’s TAR, the cost of BAU climate change over the next two centuries is equivalent to a loss of at least 5% of global per-capita consumption, now and forever. More worrying still, when the model incorporates non-market impacts and more recent scientific findings on natural feedbacks, this total average cost is pushed to 14.4%.
    First, the welfare calculations fail to take into account distributional impacts, even though these impacts are potentially very important: poorer countries are likely to suffer the largest impacts. Second, there may be greater risks to the climate from dynamic feedbacks and from heightened climate sensitivity beyond those included here. If these are included, the total cost would be likely to be around 20% of current per-capita consumption, now and forever.

    Even if all these values are based on higher temperature estimates, it simply moves the dates back when they would occur.

    Surely you aren't going to pretend that we haven't had nearly three decades of poor policy that had nothing to do with the Paris Accord.

    I am not, but much of that policy has little to do with climate change. There are plenty of misguided policies, or policies that didn't do what they were supposed to do, but many of these (especially the older ones) were not really intended to do anything about climate change.

    Yes. There you go again, presuming that everyone who disagrees with you is less informed that you. If you want to play that game, let's play.

    No I wasn't. I was merely asking if you had. Sorry for the confusion. It is hard to express tone through text.

    Have you seen the toxic lake in China that results from the production of solar panels?

    Yes, but simple regulations could solve that problem with relative ease. China has only just started becoming a solar superpower, and does not have the required laws in place to prevent damage.

    Have you compared fatalities per TWh produced by energy source?

    I have. Nuclear is on the very bottom along with wind and solar and (maybe/technically) hydroelectric (there were a bunch of disasters with collapsing damns in the 1900s). Coal is on top with other fossil fuels coming up behind.

    Have you looked at the embodied carbon represented by wind and solar?

    I have. Both have a carbon footprint due to the energy costs of manufacturing them, but even if the source of that energy is (let's say) a coal plant, their footprint is still dramatically lower than other sources. I hope that is what you meant by that.

    How about embodied carbon in electric vehicles?

    Same thing as with the solar and wind farms. The energy that is put in to make and power them has a carbon footprint, but still lower than standard cars because typical power plants are more efficient than standard cars.

    Have you contrasted the death rates in countries that use scrubbers with those that don't?

    I have now, and based on this graphic it appears to be concentrated in areas of high industrial productions and mediocre air quality control. If you have a better source that would be nice.

    As for your plan, I do like it, but I have some recommendations/suggestions.

    • In addition to funding and reducing regulations on nuclear power, I would recommend phased regulations on fossil fuel use as progress is made, ie banning coal once other energy sources can take up the reins and eventually just purging them entirely.
    • Have programs in place to re-train workers in the fossil fuel industries to allow them to continue work.
    • Get rid of a ton of the subsidies for car companies, change them to encourage EV production, and get rid of the weird rules in place that prevent companies like Tesla from even selling cars in some states. At the same time, help car companies to make far more efficient engines during the transition phase.
    • Encourage programs against deforestation
    • I have seen quite a few articles talking about how changing food sources for cows (adding some seaweed, specifically) is a way to reduce their CH4 emissions. Cows are a decent chunk of US GHG emissions. Encouraging people to not eat beef would also help. That would save lives in its own way. Though I doubt that would ever happen, for obvious reasons.

    I just want to make it abundantly clear that the maximum values for temperature and CO2 increases by the end of 2100 you gave do not rule out dangers by any means. They just push the date back a decade or two. Whether it's me, my kids, my grand kids, or my great-grand kids, I don't want them to have to deal with any of that shit.

    By the way are you in any way involved in SkyTran, or do you just run the sub and like the idea?

    [–] Elon Musk's keynote speech at the 2017 ISSR&D Conference Fizrock 0 points ago in spacex

    Yes, but no where near a propulsive landing. I'm pretty sure other than the mercury escape cover issue, all ocean crew recoveries have been successful. Can't really say the same for propulsive landings.

    [–] To all Skeptics on this sub... Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    I just want to point out that Gob. Brown declared the drought emergency over. Gov. Brown does not have some kind of magic power to end droughts. As my earlier comment pointed out, parts of Southern California are still in drought.

    Like it has been for the past 1500 years looking a tree ring data.

    Looking at tree ring data, this drought was/is the worst in 1200 years.

    Do you think that this is man made climate change?

    Man definitely contributed, yes. It obviously is not ENTIRELY man made.

    [–] Elon Musk's keynote speech at the 2017 ISSR&D Conference Fizrock 44 points ago in spacex

    I'm honestly not at all surprised by them scrapping propulsive crewed dragon landings. There isn't really a lot of need for quick turn around times with crewed vehicles, so you might as well make it as safe as possible.

    [–] To all Skeptics on this sub... Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    The drought then will probably will get worse. California is still warming and getting dryer. Obviously the extremely powerful El Nino and subsequent massive rainfall is a well needed hiatus, but it probably won't last much past the end of 2017.

    This is against everything everyone was saying on the news.

    I don't think that is entirely true. I saw plenty of articles before the rain started saying they were going to get a ton of it.

    [–] To all Skeptics on this sub... Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    A paper on the subject.

    The Met Office has a gigantic report going a great deal into the subject. Everyone country listed their has a map if what areas get wetter and what get dryer. Page 61 of the USA report has a map of the US with rainfall changes.

    In case you don't want to dig around through those too much, I will explain it.

    Basically as air temperatures warm, it both increases the rate of evaporation, as well as how much moisture the air can hold. You might think that would increase rainfall everywhere, but rainfall also requires air circulation to allow it to reach dryer areas.

    As the earth warms, the polar regions of the globe are warming much more quickly. Wind and air circulation requires differences and variations in air temperatures, so this flattening out of global temperature variation reduces global air circulation. As a result this rain cannot be circled around as much. Instead of the earth getting uniformly more rain, it is concentrated in wetter areas, and the dryer areas get dryer.

    Here is it explained better.

    [–] To all Skeptics on this sub... Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    Depending on your location, it is getting either wetter or dryer. Typically dryer areas dryer and wetter areas get wetter.

    I still do not understand how you think that the expected extreme El Nino rains are somehow evidence that California will not dry out again. California has been getting hotter and hotter along with the rest of the globe. I would still like to point out that the south west portion of California is still in drought. The drought is not even technically over.

    [–] MIT Researchers Slam Global Warming Data In New Report: In No Way A “Valid Representation of Reality” Fizrock 1 points ago in climateskeptics

    Well that is not even remotely true, but anyway...

    The paper properly sources its data and clearly demonstrates its reasoning

    It sites blogs. A professor would have given this an F

    Also the conclusion that it came to that NASA and NOAH "changed historical temperature data" is clearly outlined on both the NASA and the NOAH websites with full explanations as to why it was done. It is also backed up by several papers. Not only is this thing a blog, it is a poorly sited blog that claims to come to some kind of breakthrough conclusion, despite its conclusion being already well known.

    [–] Will The Sun Put The Brakes On Global Warming? Fizrock 0 points ago in climateskeptics

    I just want to make it clear that the actual temperature of the globe right now is not the problem, it is the rate at which it is warming. So when you say,

    In other words, the 1900-2000's temperatures are not unprecedented in the context of the Holocene, and the uptick you're trying to force on the end there doesnt create a robust conclusion about modern temps in comparison to Holocene temps over 11,000 years.

    that is kind of meaningless for the discussion. If it was 10 degrees warmer on average during the holocene, it wouldn't mean anything in the context of AGW. It has been substantially hotter in certain periods of earth's past.

    [–] Will The Sun Put The Brakes On Global Warming? Fizrock 1 points ago in climateskeptics

    So do you agree that nazism is not right wing, and communism is not left wing? I am at a loss as to why this needs to be explained to you, and there are plenty of places that talk about it in great detail:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
    https://www.bundestag.de/blob/189776/01b7ea57531a60126da86e2d5c5dbb78/parties_weimar_republic-data.pdf
    Nazism was/is a fascist ideology, which falls at the farthest right point on the political spectrum.
    Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

    The wiki articles have sources listed at the bottom.

    [–] To all Skeptics on this sub... Fizrock -1 points ago in climateskeptics

    it's limited by what science can realistically predict.

    Except it's not. We know the earth is warming. We know the earth will continue to warm. Our current models can account for past and current temperatures. Warmer air means more droughts in drought-prone areas. It's not too difficult to understand.

    [–] To all Skeptics on this sub... Fizrock -1 points ago in climateskeptics

    That is the current state of drought in the US right now, with short term predictions for the end of the year. We just discussed this.