Support NeoGAF

[Kenpachii]

Saw this guy outside when it was 42c fully winter clothed and not a drip of sweat on his head. he was fat also.

He gave zero fucks.

 

[Scopa]

Saw this guy outside when it was 42c fully winter clothed and not a drip of sweat on his head. he was fat also.

He gave zero fucks.

I’ve noticed bogans still wear thick hoodies in heat waves.

I think they feel tougher with big clothing on. Curious.

 

[Deleted member 738976]

lol "close to thermal limits". most nerdy scientist way to say "it is hot hot hot",

drink plenty of fluids, folks. stay hydrated. this is important whether or not you believe in spontaneous combustion. and im not talking coffee or tea. drink lots of water.

 

[Luffytubby]

why you care about carbon emission reduction when we already heading down that path and volcanoes fuck our shit up every year

climate scientists don't even lift

Volcanos do little compared to natural forest fires. Indonesia had forest fires in 2015 that rocked the world. It caused emissions equivalent to Germanys national annual emissions. And like with many forest fires in recent years, its due to plant oil and timber production.

Volcanos fuck up shit up, but nature also naturally creates hundreds of new of new trees annually. Plus, the oceans work as a big filter with massive amounts of plankton and seaweed having taken up 50% of all carbon in the atmosphere.


Which is why many people say that carbon capture plants is a worse idea than just planting a shit ton of trees. 1.2 trillion trees supposedly to be able to set back emissions ten years. Drones will be the only the way to do that a large scale which is why we see a lot of reforesting drone startups. If you had to invest in a tech company, something like Drone Seed might become big money really soon. Or it depends if governments will come on board. Needs more incentive to make this work at a global scale; https://www.trilliontrees.org/ / https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ion-trees-could-be-most-effective-solution-to

 

[Tesseract]

Volcanos do little compared to natural forest fires. Indonesia had forest fires in 2015 that rocked the world. It caused emissions equivalent to Germanys national annual emissions. And like with many forest fires in recent years, its due to plant oil and timber production.

Volcanos fuck up shit up, but nature also naturally creates hundreds of new of new trees annually. Plus, the oceans work as a big filter with massive amounts of plankton and seaweed having taken up 50% of all carbon in the atmosphere.


Which is why many people say that carbon capture plants is a worse idea than just planting a shit ton of trees. 1.2 trillion trees supposedly to be able to set back emissions ten years. Drones will be the only the way to do that a large scale which is why we see a lot of reforesting drone startups. If you had to invest in a tech company, something like Drone Seed might become big money really soon. Or it depends if governments will come on board. Needs more incentive to make this work at a global scale; https://www.trilliontrees.org/ / https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ion-trees-could-be-most-effective-solution-to

a couple volcanoes produce more emissions than all of mankind many times over, that's why i used them because it shows you the scale of things

human emissions don't matter

 

[Clear]

While such (and other) biases can and do exist within science, that is not an argument you can use to dismiss a specific claim. Also, there are mechanisms to combat that, tenure is one of them. It's also worth mentioning that the majority of labor in academia is done by grant students, who generally don't have much to do with grant applications and who reach their own conclusions. It's perfectly fine to be critical of science, but the starting point shouldn't be "there's self interest, so they might be acting out of self interest", because while that may be true, you can say that about a whole swathe of things.

A concrete example is the current state of high energy physics, where many seem to have lost perspective. You can argue against their lobbying for building a new particle collider at CERN and give very specific, scientific reasons for why that maybe shouldn't be done, and after all that argue that maybe their inability to confront these argument points to a certain social bias within the community. But you cannot a priori accuse them of such biases simply because "particle physicist are gonna want a collider!" - maybe they have good reason to want one.

The thing is, most people who do science are driven by curiosity, and are the first ones to try to disprove their own ideas. Because they know how hard it is to have a genuinely good, novel idea and don't want to pass their own off as that before they know it's the case. They're also people who aren't likely to take others at their word when making unsubstantiated claims.

Finally, there's a huge amount of influential powers that stand to lose from climate change policies. If your goal is to get grant money, then antagonizing the oil industry, car industry, hell the whole freight industry, maybe isn't the best plan, eh?

Politics has always had a corrupting influence on the purity of science, its an undeniable, historical fact. Treating scientists like a priesthood is fine, but only if you remember there are pedophile priests and other unsavory individuals lurking within their ranks. You cannot conflate the worthyness of the calling with individual deeds and intentions.

I am not anti-science by any means, I just think that its a more complex issue than it first appears. Science in the end is just a tool, how that tool is used depends upon who is wielding it.

Most of all though, do not assume any skepticism I express towards climatology in general comes hand-in-hand with a cavalier disregard for environmental and/or anti-pollution concerns. I care very much about conservation and environmentalism in general, I actually live a "greener" life-style than most, and that's always going to be reflected in my political stances.

However. That doesn't mean to say I'm automatically going to count on the ethical purity and nostradamus-like prescience of a wing of the scientific establishment that in order to have any practical use needs to work in conjunction with politicians and economists. Two "scientific" disciplines that I'm even less trusting of than the climatologists.

The world is changing very fast as it is, and without people really being consciously aware if it. A good example of this is when I look out at the skyline of the English town where I live. Practically every house, on every street has a chimney pot on its roof. Less than a hundred years ago every one of those would be billowing coal or woodsmoke for most of the year because that was how people heated their homes. Nowadays, you rarely see any emissions, ever and thats a scenario that no doubt has been repeated all across the British isles.

This is clearly a positive thing, but you have to wonder how much is it a case of simply displacing the problem because the gas and electric solutions that have superceded the need for fireplace/chimneys carry their own environmental costs. Is it just "out of sight, out of mind" assuming you don't live in proximity to one of the power stations and gas refineries...

Back then, saying to the public choose cleaner electric power over fossil-fuels offers a direct choice. Nowadays, its waaaay above the average person's pay-grade. Even at a national political level, how are the industrialized powers supposed to prevent countries in the developing world doing what they want on their territory? I mean, how do we stop Brazil destroying the Amazon? Go to war against them? Think about the carbon footprint of any sort of military invention

Bottom line is that its always going to be a political and economic issue between nations. And no amount of alarmist rhetoric from climatologists is going to change that.

 

[GHG]

People have been living in deserts long before AC was a thing.

Wear less clothes, drink more water, eat hydrating food, adapt and man up. The simple reality is that many countries experiencing the current surge in temperatures are Ill-equipped to cope, especially in terms of infrastructure. Our bodies are more resilient than this guy would have you believe, in most instances it's the structures we place around our bodies that are becoming problematic.

Climate change is obviously going to be a huge challenge going forwards but this level of sensationalist fear mongering bullshit doesn't help anyone.

 

[Sakura]

I understand average temperatures are getting hotter, but surely we've had hot days in the past where the wet bulb temperature crossed 35 degrees and everybody didn't die, right?

a couple volcanoes produce more emissions than all of mankind many times over, that's why i used them because it shows you the scale of things

human emissions don't matter

I thought this volcano thing has been debunked?

 

[Luffytubby]

a couple volcanoes produce more emissions than all of mankind many times over, that's why i used them because it shows you the scale of things

human emissions don't matter

Dear EarthTalk: Could it really be true that a single large volcanic eruption launches more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the amount generated by all of humanity over history?
-- Steve Schlemmer, London, England

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

It is peanuts compared to the human cost unless we are talking about a super volcano. If Yellowstone erupted tomorrow we would all die. Ash would cover the entire earth for more than a hundred years causing a potential mass extinction. But regular volcanos? Nah.

 

[Insane Metal]

Why we still fat though?

Speak for yourself, fatty

 

[iconmaster]

When a climate scientist tells you her body is close to the thermal limit, that's your cue to ask for the check.

 

[Tesseract]

It is peanuts compared to the human cost unless we are talking about a super volcano. If Yellowstone erupted tomorrow we would all die. Ash would cover the entire earth for more than a hundred years causing a potential mass extinction. But regular volcanos? Nah.

it is true tho, the big volcano last year is estimated to have released two times more emissions than all of human history

 

[Luffytubby]

it is true tho, the big volcano last year is estimated to have released two times more emissions than all of human history

Then all the more reason to plant more of dem trees!

People have been living in deserts long before AC was a thing.

Wear less clothes, drink more water, eat hydrating food, adapt and man up. The simple reality is that many countries experiencing the current surge in temperatures are Ill-equipped to cope, especially in terms of infrastructure. Our bodies are more resilient than this guy would have you believe, in most instances it's the structures we place around our bodies that are becoming problematic.

Climate change is obviously going to be a huge challenge going forwards but this level of sensationalist fear mongering bullshit doesn't help anyone.

The problem is not the temperature itself as much as the humidity. Your body has a core temperature. Once it reaches a certain point, the body sweats as a build in cooling mechanism. The body cannot sweat it off if the humidity level is too high.

 

[Ornlu]

Then all the more reason to plant more of dem trees!




The problem is not the temperature itself as much as the humidity. Your body has a core temperature. Once it reaches a certain point, the body sweats as a build in cooling mechanism. The body cannot sweat it off if the humidity level is too high.

I'm all for reforestation/fighting desertification. Same goes with cleaning out the waters of the world of their plastics. I doubt you'd find anyone against either of those two efforts.

As per humidity; yes it sucks. I'm from an area that can be at least 90 degrees F and 70%-90% humidity for 6-8 months out of the year. Without AC, very few people would naturally live past 70 or so in that type of climate.

 

[Kamina]

Thats alright, if all goes to shits in middle europe i will move to northern europe, or iceland.
If all fails, there is a nice big island group called Svalbard even further north to escape to.