Slashdot Mirror
Norway is Entering a New Era of Climate-Conscious Architecture (theatlantic.com)
The European Union has a target of making all new buildings zero-energy by 2020, but in Norway, carbon neutrality isn't enough. From a report: A consortium in Oslo made up of architects, engineers, environmentalists, and designers is creating energy-positive buildings in a country with some of the coldest and darkest winters on Earth. "If you can make it in Norway, you can make it anywhere," says Peter Bernhard, a consultant with Asplan Viak, one of the Powerhouse alliance members.
Bernhard says Powerhouse began in 2010 with a question: Is it possible to not only eliminate the carbon footprint of buildings, but to also use them as a climate-crisis solution? It was a lofty goal. According to the European Commission, buildings account for 40 percent of energy usage and 36 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions in the EU. But after undertaking several energy-positive projects -- building a new Montessori school, retrofitting four small office buildings, building a few homes, and breaking ground on two new office buildings -- Powerhouse has found the answer to the 2010 question to be an emphatic "Yes." In 2019, the collective's biggest project to date will open to the public: Powerhouse Brattorkaia, in the central Norwegian city of Trondheim.
Bernhard says Powerhouse began in 2010 with a question: Is it possible to not only eliminate the carbon footprint of buildings, but to also use them as a climate-crisis solution? It was a lofty goal. According to the European Commission, buildings account for 40 percent of energy usage and 36 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions in the EU. But after undertaking several energy-positive projects -- building a new Montessori school, retrofitting four small office buildings, building a few homes, and breaking ground on two new office buildings -- Powerhouse has found the answer to the 2010 question to be an emphatic "Yes." In 2019, the collective's biggest project to date will open to the public: Powerhouse Brattorkaia, in the central Norwegian city of Trondheim.
Would you rather have it around blockchains or bitcoins?
Perhaps we can have it like Slashdot back in the late 1990's A dozen articles a day mostly based on Linux, 3 of them are dupes, 1 is about a minor kernel upgrade, and 3 about some sort of Windows manager. 4 on the Evil Mean Old Microsoft, and 2 on some programming langue authors latest GNU Rant (for or against), then a something else.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's news for nerds. Science has revealed that we have a planetary-scale crisis on our hands, and the only way to save Earth is to make scientific and technological breakthroughs while evading the dumb bullies trying to stop us, it doesn't get a whole lot nerdier than that!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Oh well I can certainly see how such a trivial issue as the Earth, being the only planet we can currently live on for the foreseeable future, continuing to be habitable wouldn't interest anyone. What's that compared to talking about yet more toys, playing with computers, screwing around with video games, and some science fantasy movie or other? We should just forget all about this silly survival-as-a-species nonsense, that's for the next generation to worry about, who cares if they survive so long as we can play all the time until we drop dead? Live for today! You're more important than everyone else on the planet, past present or future! Some girl might actually let your touch her boobies, what's more important than that! #MAGA! :-(
It all started going wrong when the iPod came out.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Your great grand children are going to look silly when despite all the "breakthroughs" the climate just goes ahead and changes anyway. But like all good religions you can always blame the infidels.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Also constant wars, famines, refugee crises, and more powerful and frequent natural disasters (contributing to the prior 3).
Elevate yourself 5 inches above that shit, smart guy.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not every place on earth is so fortunate. If they can make it there they can make it anywhere seems a bit suspect, if you ask me.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The climate doesn't have to be static but we do have to keep it in a range that works well with our established civilization, so in the far future it may indeed be necessary to geoengineer our way out of natural climate change. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not counterproductive to solve our current problems because of it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
All overpopulation problems. Africa and much of asia needs to be *ahem* "infected" with the prosperous anti-natalist attitudes that permeate most of the west.
It's called a log cabin. Literally TONS of carbon are locked away for the lifetime of the structure. The more carbon you lock away in the form of trees, the more insulation and thermal mass you have as a result.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
To be fair here, it will take far worse than even the worst foreseeable global warming to make this planet actually uninhabitable for us.
It's not human *life* that is not sustainable the direction that we are going, it is the developed country life-*style* that is not sustainable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
BOO WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE MOTHERFUCKER THE OCEAN LEVEL IS GOING TO RISE A WHOLE 5 INCHES IN THE NEXT 500 YEARS!
I feel like you have severely underestimated the sea level rise. However, the more important thing is that areas of arable land will begin shifting locations or disappearing from parts of the planet. This will inevitably result in hunger, famine, death, conflict and mass migration. If you don't like the balance of immigration in your country now then how will you feel after a hundred million people start migrating because their country became a total wasteland because you didn't give a shit?
We're not all going to die but a lot of people and ecosystems will die. The global ecosystem will be ruined and you, one of the people responsible, refuses to take any responsibility for your part in it.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
No, you're probably thinking Iceland. Norway has offshore oil.
Doesn't mean we just stick our fingers in our ears going LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! when the subject comes up and ignore the whole thing. Or if it does then I have to conclude that our entire species doesn't deserve to survive anyway and should just do it right and launch all the missiles now and end it.
Almost all power generated in Norway is from hydro; their capacity is something like 105% of their domestic requirement (and they have loads of room to increase that if needed). In that sense they are blessed.
So in this case I wonder if the building is really using geothermal power, or if they are just storing heat underground and remove it when needed?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Science hasn't revealed anything of the sort. A bunch of computer models and consensus have made that claim. If you followed the scientific method of Observe, Question, Hypothesize, Experiment, Conclude then you'd have to admit that due to the lack of actual predictions actually being met that it hasn't passed the test.
Actually, yes, I would like more stories like that
Who are you to decide what the range should be? When the planet was hotter and had higher CO2 levels, plant life was in much more abundance, so was animal life. Your myopic view point is the temperature must be where it has been most of your very short life (in a geologic sense), where you are comfortable. Seems a bit arrogant to be deciding for all life on Earth, doesn't it?
Of course not.... I'm just saying that there's no need for hyperbole.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Nonsense.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
As another commenter has pointed out, I was thinking of Iceland, not Norway... my bad. Still, not every place has an excess of hydroelectric power either, and the point still stands.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The dire global warnings cause most people with a memory to roll their eyes now.
https://www.wnd.com/2018/12/de...
It's possible and probably helpful to ourselves and the planet to make the world cleaner - I mean who doesn't want to be clean? But tying it end to end of the world warnings is just exhausting. And the more exhausted people are, the less they have energy to care.
and the next-lastest to rise. Do you want to bother with Norway? Let me tell you, there is nothing up the norway but more cold, more ice, more blackness. It is literally hell on earth.
...you can make it anywhere".
A lot of people think that way. "Well it works here, so why doesn't it work over there?".
It's not being chosen based on any individual's comfort level, it's being chosen based on the last couple centuries of explosive construction and population growth around the world. We have cities and farms in certain regions and we don't want them to be turned into salt marshes or deserts.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The dire global warnings cause most people with a memory to roll their eyes now.
Only if those people's memories are composed entirely of cherry-picked bias confirmation material from conspiracy websites. See this post:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Uh-oh . . . that triggered an annoying and frightening musical thought in me . . .
If they can make it there they can make it anywhere
It's up to you . . . Nor-way . . . Nor-way!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The warm winds from the African coast go up and around Norway ensuring rather mild winters.
1. Sell tons of oil.
2. Buy Teslas.
3. ???
4. Voila! Carbon neutral!
the iPod brought more influence on Apple. However I think what really did it in was the iPhone and Android phones. Where these consumer devices started to hit the tech news cycle.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Norway is very cold. It's maximum average temperature in the summer is around 65F. Heating is *much* cheaper, and easier, than cooling.
A building built take advantage of solar heat in the winter is going to be a nightmare to keep cool in a place that also gets 90F humid summers.
I've heard the most cost--effective place to live, energy-wise, is the desert. It cools off in at night, so you can open up windows and cool a building off, then seal it up during the day and take advantage of swamp cooling, or geothermal, when absolutely required. Plus there is plenty of solar and wind available. The only issue is high density housing is more difficult to cool in those situations.
you commit the fallacy of asserting a consequent that is quite impossible. stick to social issues, you know nothing of science or engineering.
Now you just need to build it five to ten stories high with fireproofed wood pulp bricks, include modern HVAC, fiber and telecom, water and sewage, other machinery,...
I think you were being sarcastic but in fact they are planning to build a wooden skyscraper in Tokyo.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
True, and but Norway also has some thermal, wind and tidal power. Norway's electric grid is connected to Sweden, Denmark and Holland. Despite that Norway produces 9.3 tons CO2 per capita (in 2014), which is more then EU average.
See subject: Why do snowflakes FEAR any warming? They already MELT under the normal pressure of life - any warmer, they're extinct!
* RoTfLmAo! Picked that up the other day here & it made me LMAO bigtime!
Honestly, how do I see "global warming"?
A possible CYCLICAL EVENT like the ice age was - the cause of THAT or this alleged "global warming" imo @ least - normal pattern for the planet QUITE possibly & can WE 'stop it'? DOUBT IT!
I mean, look @ Al Gore: "Do as I SAY but not as I DO" (you go 1st buddy & you do NOT 'practice what you preach' AS YOU ASK FOR "MO' MONEY"):
He tells others NOT to burn excess power BUT HAS A COMPOUND IN THE STATE IT'S LOCATED IN THAT BURNS like 1/2 the STATE's POWER CONSUMPTION!!!
Hypocrite conman, nothing more - the 'powers that be' stir you up VIA ORGANIZED RELIGION (I am all for God but NOT MEN USING HIM AGAINST US to create war & profit for them), OR "for the children" (kids are great, men using our sensibilities AGAINST us is not) are DANGEROUS - & the 'game' that "controllers" have used SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME using ourselves against us.
Be VERY aware of that!
Heck, even a film like APOCALYPTO shows you that in its OWN way (kukulkhan is ANGRY so kill people to appease him bs).
APK
P.S.=> Does it HURT to be good to the environment, get off fossil fuels (big petrol's held us down there as it's their MONEY), recycle etc.? No - but I DOUBT we can beat mother nature doing her thing too... apk
Why would anyone find an article about people in another country taking action on energy efficiency and climate change to be scary? At worst this this would mean some new Norwegian buildings are a bit over-engineered.
Finding this news somehow frightening or offensive suggests that your feelings are... well, irrational. Either way -- scientific truth or Chinese hoax -- climate change is the biggest science and technology of the day. If you don't want to read about it, that's your business. If other people reading about it makes you feel bad, well there are plenty of denialist forums to keep your head stuck in if that's what it takes to make you feel safe.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Since they last longer when immersed in fire, than steel and concrete. I shit you not.
Only large, thick logs/beams though. Obviously not heaps of twigs.
Replying to myself to be clear. When we say that almost all Norwegian power comes from hydro, that refers to electric power.
THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Nope. Keep your conspiracy theories off Slashdot.
Also constant wars, famines, refugee crises
Story of the human race. You're a fool if you think that's going to change ever.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I feel you're severely overestimating it. Now we can argue for the next 500 years. But the good thing about the absolute worst case end of the world scenario is it never happens.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
we do have to keep it in a range that works well with our established civilization
See, you're doing it wrong. We keep civilization in a range that works well with the climate. You dream about affecting the entire globe's climate good luck to you. I'm sure the planet has a few surprises in store for you no matter how smart you think you are.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
the climate just goes ahead and changes anyway.
Uhm, even with this outlook your standpoint doesn't make sense.
If you believe that climate is ever changing, why are you opposing changing it to our advantage?
But like all good religions you can always blame the infidels.
Well, it is always good to question your beliefs, you should try it some time.
You're a moron, not a scientist. Anyone who argues with you is wasting precious time best spent on anything else. You're a moron, not a scientist.
Yes there will likely always be wars, famines, and refugee crises, but the number and scale can be affected. The presence of one small example of each is not as bad as a thousand large examples of each, for example.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Compressed Earth Blocks: Why and How, Here and There https://youtu.be/IuQB3x4ZNeA
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
The trouble is that trying to adapt civilization to the climate causes those wars and refugee crises and famines we're talking about. It will be very bad for non-human life too, ocean acidification could lead to an oceanic mass extinction if unchecked, just for starters. It's easier to fix the climate than to fix the civilization and non-human life, smarter people than us have considered this and come to that conclusion, but I encourage you to consider it for yourself too.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's funny. Most people that I know off worry quite a lot about the future of our planet and what we are doing to it. I do see quite a lot of eye-rolling, but this tends to happen when we hear some nonsense about how "we need more research", or how a government is looking to roll back environmental standards.
We are losing many of the things that make this world valuable. It is not enough to want to be clean. We have to put the (massive) resources into it that it will take.
"Your great grand children are going to look silly when despite all the "breakthroughs" the climate just goes ahead and changes anyway"
Well, it is one possibility. And if that it true, I think, our children will look back on the knowledge that we have now, and understand why we came to the wrong conclusions, and be glad that they are better informed than we are.
Or, alternatively, they will look at the knowledge that we had, that we knew what we are doing, and decided to carry on doing it, because we were too disorganised, too foolish or too careless to stop.
I know which side of history I would rather be on.
You need an education in critical thinking before your spread the misinformation you where fed and have bought hook line and sinker.
And don't forget: one reader poll!
I miss those polls.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Cause that's how you get mold.
4 on the Evil Mean Old Microsoft
You mean we don't have to write it as "Micro$oft" any more?
Who are you to decide what the range should be?
The humans who, y'know, live here and grow food here.
When 150 million people start to migrate north to escape warming and famine you can bet the USA and Canada will have to sit up and take notice.
Norway could stop extracting and selling hydrocarbons? Who is worse, the user or the drug dealer? Climate conscious my ass.
Do the projected energy costs over the existing buildings use get paid back in savings by retrofitting?
Are the new energy costs so large that new spending on retrofitting is the only way to keep the cost of energy low?
How about getting low cost energy for everyone in Norway and not having to pay for "retrofitting"?
Put that "retrofitting" money to some other better use? Like making energy low cost so existing buildings don't have to pay extra for new "retrofitting"?
Low cost energy would be great for all of Norway.
All kinds of business can pay less for power, older building stay warm. Exports from a productive Norway are better priced globally.
New and emerging business won't have to pay for "retrofitting" the buildings they work in and can enjoy lower rent.
Lower rent and less tax, no retrofitting costs, low power prices.
When new buildings are finally needed, build them new to better standards.
They pay less for power now and put that money to improving products and exports. Energy costs and "retrofitting" just takes money away.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If they were really that smart they would have put their money and energy into geoengineering research instead of screaming about carbon taxes. Since we all apparently agree that we will eventually need geoengineering to deal with natural climate change anywa, it is utterly idiotic to ignore it for now and just focus on curbing emissions.
That's how you know that AGW is an ideological battle rather than any kind of rational discussion. One side wants to ignore it completely, while the other side wants to ignore the best solution because it takes away their opportunity to play holier-than-thou.
Yeah sure ignoring the problem completely will just make it evaporate. Bug off.
Yeah sure and you need to bugger off.
Doesn't know the difference between 'hyperbole' and 'extreme sarcasm'
Please just go away.
I never said to ignore "the problem". You keep assuming and asserting things that are false. This shows a common mindset among self-imagined "greenies" that have no conception of reality. Your world view can't work, won't work in reality.
The "developed country lifestyle" is of course very sustainable, keeping it so is an engineering problem with known solutions. We have essentially infinite energy supply on this earth, an ocean full of water, resources that magically DON'T leave the planet after use, 20+ miles of the earth's crust for "rare earths" we've barely scratched, helium that mostly is just vented from natural gas wells instead of being captured at all, etc.
In short, the chicken-little flailing of arms and wailing is just silly.
It's not human *life* that is not sustainable the direction that we are going, it is the developed country life-*style* that is not sustainable.
Oh, that's also quite sustainable; it's simply not sustainable with the current size of the global population. You could implement China's one-child policy on a global level and fix the problem in a couple generations ... but since that seems unlikely, we will probably fix it the way we usually do: through war and mass starvation.
I picked up on the sarcasm of this statement just fine:
The implication in this, however, is that continuing to ignore the problem might actually ultimately render this planet *UN*inhabitable.
Which is not the case, and suggesting that it is so is hyperbole.
It's serious. It's damn serious. And I'm not for a second suggesting that anyone should ignore it.
But that shouldn't offer a license to exaggerate about the outcome either.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Funny, as China's one-child policy did not actually stop their population from growing It slowed the growth rate down, but you said the problem was the size of the population, not its rate of growth (which, incidentally, is only just beginning to slow down now in developed countries anyways).
Also, the mechanisms that were used in China to restrict the number of children people were allowed, such as mandatory sterilization in hospitals after the birth of their first (or sometimes 2nd) child, and denial of fundamental human rights to people who continued to violate the policy, would not be practical to implement in the western world.
Not to mention the fact that you are still talking about making changes to the status quo, whether by implementing social policy, or through war or starvation, which by definition is an admission that it isn't actually sustainable in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Humans are no doubt raping the earth. Fuck boy here, or whatever is an appropriate moniker (fuck girl? Though I'm pretty sure dude has a small penis...) should really be ignored. It's super sad people even respond to this type of self righteous denier bs.
The reality is humans can live in a buffer. We're one of the few species that can create shelter to survive a shit storm in the ecosystem around us. It won't be pretty, but slowly the world around and that which makes life beautiful and worth living will fade away. Doesn't take a genius to know we have certainly set in motion some negative consequences for our progeny, if not ourselves.
Being the "smartest" species on the planet, if we really were, we'd leave the world better for having us. It's just not the case. The world will survive, that I agree with the deniers on, and humans might pull through a most epic die-off of our fellow species, I'm not sure... but we don't deserve to and if we cause our end, it seems fully fitting with our behavior. You know?
Perhaps karma will spare the Norwegians? Though realistically I'm skeptical that attempts to be carbon neutral will have a net gain, when one considers all the mining and emissions that go into making all the fancy gadgetry that one small privileged first world nation can afford. At the very least, it's not unreasonable to say it's not enough... We need to hold polluters accountable for their actions, and then some, to make up for the inevitable corruptions that creep into any system. The thing is, as long as dipshits like the top poster are running countries, and they are sadly, this ain't gonna happen willingly. Especially when people with money have the power*, where even the progressive ones think buying Teslas is the answer. The solution is hazy at best, from where I stand.
* While I'm at it, it's worth stating dipshits like top poster are mere tools for those with the REAL power. Perhaps they believe the shit they're spewing, but the true forces behind what continues the gears of irresponsible capitalism don't care about what's good, but rather what makes the bucks in a relatively short-term scenario. I'm hoping eventually the focus will shift to longer term profits, but I don't think this happens before serious forces mandate a change, and as bad as things are, usually severe symptoms don't show up until AFTER shit has gone wrong for too long (ie: cancer) and we will be fighting an uphill battle at that point. I wish we could have an honest discussion about this.
Eventually it might. Stupid people, of which currently there are way too many for my liking, latch onto that and use it as an excuse to ignore the problem entirely, continue being wasteful, and even so far as to be MORE wasteful, polluting, selfish, and so on. There is literally no reason to continue using fossil fuels, and seek out cleaner, more efficient replacement technologies, but stupid, wasteful, selfish people, again of which there are way too many, just can't be bothered.
I've had it up to HERE with people's stupidity, and I'm sick and bloody well tired of trying to reason with them when they clearly aren't capable of being reasoned with. So the kid gloves come off and they can get punched in the mouth every time they say something stupid. I recommend everyone else take a hard line on this subject. It's not something 'optional' that you can just write off to people's personal preferences anymore.
Not in any global warming scenario that has ever been realistically projected.
Everything else in your post, I am entirely on the same page as you about...
But because there's a whole lot more to being alive than just mere "survival".... projecting some kind of hypothetical worst case scenario that doesn't have any actual scientific justification to trigger an emotional response doesn't really help the science that shows that this is something we still really need to fix.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
which by definition is an admission that it isn't actually sustainable in the first place.
Duh. Nothing is sustainable as long as the population continues to grow.
Reducing and eventually reversing fossil carbon emission IS THE MOST IMPORTANT geoengineering effort, and carbon taxes are how it will be paid for! *epic facepalm*
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
CA recently requires that all new buildings have so many sq feet of solar on their roof top. That is actually a horrible regulation since it really does not accomplish much, except take business away from local utility.
Instead, they should have required that all new buildings of 6 stories and under have enough on-site unsubsidized AE to => the HVAC's energy usage. This way, it gives developers choices on where to spend, be it LED lighting or better, more insulation, better windows, and/or ideally a geo-thermal HVAC, OR to buy much bigger AE systems, such as solar.
Fact is, it would be better for developers to spend it on the first, so as to not spend so much on the AE system.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nothing is lower than you WindBourne.
Why suspect and lie when you can just check?
Nonsense. It's too slow and inefficient, and it requires global buy-in. Even assuming we can get everyone on board, what are you going to do if we need to heat things up in the future? Start lighting oil wells on fire and burning down forests?
We need better tools than that. Regulating CO2 levels is only "good" in the absence of other options. Nobody who was actually serious about being able to regulate the global climate would look to CO2 as the sole/default method. Plus, as a side benefit, if we can develop a good toolset for climate modification here on earth, it makes it that much easier to terraform other planets in the future.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's not too slow if we act soon, and yes global buy-in is needed, and if Steve Bannon doesn't get too many more denialist centipedes elected that can be had (usually the number of denialist governments is 0 or 1, but now with Brazil there are 2). If we need to heat things up in the future we may indeed have to bring fossil fuels back into grid power, although we'll more likely rely on intentionally releasing other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrogen triflouride.
Regulating CO2 levels is the best and by far the most important control on the climate we have in this situation, not some crappy fallback option, that's what the others are. If we try to work around regulating CO2 levels and let them increase while we compensate with other mechanisms, we'll walk right into an oceanic mass extinction through ocean acidification, and eventually into a global decrease of human cognitive power.
Trying to solve global warming by fiddling with anything but CO2 levels is just treating a few of the symptoms while the disease slowly but surely eats the planet alive.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You clearly have no idea ... blah blah blah
I like how you say I have no idea, then go on to agree with me on every point except one.
Regulating CO2 levels is the best and by far the most important control on the climate we have in this situation
Again, nonsense.
we'll walk right into an oceanic mass extinction through ocean acidification
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly some sealife would die out. However 150 MYA the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 4 times higher than today, and the sealife of the time did just fine. Life will evolve as it always does.
and eventually into a global decrease of human cognitive power
Right, if we continue current trends, we only have 800 years to avoid that problem!
Trying to solve global warming by fiddling with anything but CO2 levels is just treating a few of the symptoms while the disease slowly but surely eats the planet alive.
Trying to force-fuck global industries into reducing CO2 output is just pretending to do something useful. Eventually our technology will move beyond the need to output massive quantities of CO2, our sequestration technology will improve to the point of being practical and economically viable, and we will be able to reverse the current trends. Until then we should focusing on figuring out what the optimal temperatures actually are, and finding practical ways to manipulate it in a reasonable timeframe.
Seriously.. Do we need 3 scare articles per day about Global Warming?
No. We are only delivering 3 scare articles per day. Evidence suggests we need a shitload more to get the point across.
So you are willing to risk an oceanic mass extinction to avoid moving to the cleanest and what's rapidly becoming the cheapest form of energy, duly noted. Evolution can't outrun anthropogenic climate change though. This isn't your cretaceous grandaddy's climate change.
We know that the optimal temperatures are just slightly above pre-industrial levels and well below where we are now, no more work needs to be done there. You can't escape the issue that CO2 is the most important and practical control, nobody credible will ever tell you anything different. Making industries switch to a power source with a competive cost is hardly "force-fucking," but wait until you see what global warming does to them...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I posted people forgetting what the former vice president and one of the more vocal leaders of the global warming community stated and you linked to your own post.
We all look for stories that prove our points GameboyRMH. The trick is to also read the stuff sent by others that try to refute it.
Reading an article about cherry picking doesn't really refute anything.
Maybe it's time for the global warming crowd to publicly disavow Gore so they can spent more time preaching and less time defending that man. As a Catholic, I definitely understand not wanting to throw one of your priests overboard, but sometimes you need to do it
Personally I don't care about Al Gore. Picking out one of his quotes is useless irrelevant cherry-picking. His foundation has done less to combat global warming than his heated pool has done to worsen it. I haven't and don't defend him. And yet, I still have to deal with cherry-picked beefs about his quotes from you and the rest of the deniosphere.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You are moving the goalposts of your position, which was originally that there were too many people to begin with, not that the population was growing without being checked.
But to address that point, as I had already said, in developed nations, the growth rate is already starting to slow down... and this is not happening because people are dying or because people are being forced into having smaller families.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
From the Carbon Brief article
While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account.
So which model shows that since 2016 the temperature has gone down 0.56 degrees C? According to the same Goddard center, average global temperature since 1880 rose about .85 degrees C and in the last 2 years 65% of that increase went away. Show me the model that predicted that.
You are moving the goalposts of your position, which was originally that there were too many people to begin with, not that the population was growing without being checked.
Not moving the goalposts even an inch; the current rate of growth should have been an obvious part of the original statement. Why in the world would you assume I was talking about the global population as if it were static?
If you really want to be a dick about it, sure, go ahead and plant the goalposts where you like. Even assuming zero growth, the situation isn't sustainable regardless of whether people live a first world or third world "life style". The only difference is that with zero growth it might be possible to sustain the population long term with the advent of new technologies, whereas with a growing population not even new technology can help us.
But to address that point, as I had already said, in developed nations, the growth rate is already starting to slow down... and this is not happening because people are dying or because people are being forced into having smaller families.
It's happening because of the first world standard of living which you were besmirching. If we could extend the same quality of life to the rest of the planet it is likely that we would see a similar reduction in population growth around the globe ... after a couple generations. To say that such a solution is unlikely to come in time is a gross understatement.
That's an expected part of a natural cycle you asshat, even WaPo could tell you that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
But apparently you only read and mindlessly parrot climate conspiracy blogs. And even with this cooling, 2018 is on track to be the 4th hottest year on record:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/st...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Because that's what you said:
(emphasis mine).
Anyways... to your next point
That will solve the issue of overpopulation, sure... but it will not solve the matter of how the existing population is continuing to do damage to our environment... it was *THAT* which was alleged to be entirely sustainable... and you now appear to be arguing that it should somehow continue to be indefinitely sustainable even if the population were static, and this is utterly false (not to mention entirely contradictory to your original statement which was that it was supposedly *not* sustainable with the "current size of the global population"). If that's not moving the goalposts, I have no idea what is.
My argument has always been that the damage we are doing will not leave the developed countries' lifestyles sustainable in the long run... but this is quite far removed from making the planet actually uninhabitable, which was the exaggeration I was originally objecting to.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I criticizing the end of the world chicken little crap. Enough high profile people make the claim and it comes out false or grossly exaggerated, the less people will react if the claim is ever true.
You can bitch about how unfair that it, but it's the truth.
Well nobody can stop celebrities from babbling, but I place blame on people who take celebrity babble more seriously than science.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel