What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: climate change times are a changin'

LynahFan said:
Life is way too short (and uncertain) to spend any time, calories, or dollars worrying about things beyond our control. When designing cockpits, we specifically avoid telling the pilot anything he can't/shouldn't do anything about. Yes, the #6 fuel pump may have failed, but it's backed up by the other 5, so don't bother the pilot with that extraneous information - at best, it's useless and at worst, it distracts him from something more important. Send a message to the maintenance crew instead, because they can and should do something about it.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you have backup plans in place for every essential system on the plane, correct? you don't have five backup systems for fuel pumps and zero backup systems for rudders and ailerons?

That was the place that I was trying to get to: you don't become so obsessed that your house might be invaded by a burglar that you forget to keep fresh batteries in your smoke detectors.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
I'm guessing that you have backup plans in place for every essential system on the plane, correct? you don't have five backup systems for fuel pumps and zero backup systems for rudders and ailerons?
Click to expand...
Nope. I think if there were a backup wing stowed somewhere on board, you'd notice it... Some items are categorized as "prime reliable," meaning that they have no backup - and the design margins and requirements for demonstrating their reliability are commensurate with that designation. We don't bother to tell the pilot about failures of prime reliable items - if they fail, there's nothing the pilot can do anyway. The things we DO tell the pilots about are when an item with only a single backup fails (so he knows to land ASAP since he's only one failure away from disaster at that point - something *could* go wrong) or if something *will* go wrong in the future (enough fuel system problems have occurred that there won't be enough fuel to complete the flight, so he needs to land sooner than originally planned).

That was the place that I was trying to get to: you don't become so obsessed that your house might be invaded by a burglar that you forget to keep fresh batteries in your smoke detectors.
Click to expand...
Which is fine and good, but I was actually disagreeing with your initial point. There's no point worrying about a volcanic eruption that cools the earth by 60F - we're all dead at that point. There's no point worrying about an asteroid strike that heats the earth by 60F, either - just as dead. Gradual, anthropomorphic climate change, though? We certainly can do something about that, so that is where we should focus our efforts - not on your red herrings.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

LynahFan said:
Gradual, anthropomorphic climate change, though? We certainly can do something about that, so that is where we should focus our efforts - not on your red herrings.
Click to expand...

Doing "something" merely for the sake of "doing something" seems a bit immature and self-indulgent to me. Suppose we actually try to do something effective instead?

I have serious practical and moral objections to the preferred solution, which seems primarily to be to make the US economy a sacrificial victim to feel-good emotionalism that is neither effective in solving the problem, nor thoughtful about addressing unintended consequences.
 
FreshFish said:
Doing "something" merely for the sake of "doing something" seems a bit immature and self-indulgent to me. Suppose we actually try to do something effective instead?

I have serious practical and moral objections to the preferred solution, which seems primarily to be to make the US economy a sacrificial victim to feel-good emotionalism that is neither effective in solving the problem, nor thoughtful about addressing unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Which is why you bring up asteroids and volcanos, amirite? Because of your serious objections?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
Doing "something" merely for the sake of "doing something" seems a bit immature and self-indulgent to me. Suppose we actually try to do something effective instead?

I have serious practical and moral objections to the preferred solution, which seems primarily to be to make the US economy a sacrificial victim to feel-good emotionalism that is neither effective in solving the problem, nor thoughtful about addressing unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Was this part of a mad lib? :confused:
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
Doing "something" merely for the sake of "doing something" seems a bit immature and self-indulgent to me. Suppose we actually try to do something effective instead?
Click to expand...
Dear god, no. I specifically took time out of my day to come on the internet and suggest that we should do something INEFFECTIVE, in hopes that we would all just spin our wheels for no reason whatsoever.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

LynahFan said:
Dear god, no. I specifically took time out of my day to come on the internet and suggest that we should do something INEFFECTIVE, in hopes that we would all just spin our wheels for no reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Typical liberal
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

"Dear Developing World:

Even though we have used fossil fuels successfully to advance our standard of living, we want to deny you the same opportunity for yourselves, so that we can feel like we are 'doing something meaningful' about climate change.

Signed,

US Progressives"
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

"Dear Poor People in the US:

Because we feel concerned about 'climate change,' we want you to pay more for your food, clothing, and transportation, so that we can feel like we are doing something meaningful.

Signed,

Rich US Progressives."
 
FreshFish said:
"Dear Poor People in the US:

Because we feel concerned about 'climate change,' we want you to pay more for your food, clothing, and transportation, so that we can feel like we are doing something meaningful.

Signed,

Rich US Progressives."
Click to expand...

Wow. You're not even trying anymore, are you?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Okay, so that's the morality aspect: on a practical level, we are far better off to do something meaningful world-wide to concentrate on removing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere. Merely limiting our own domestic emissions will do nothing useful given what China, India, et al are producing while it will severely handicap our own abilities to adapt and develop responses to other problems that we must also deal with.

Like others have said, we can certainly multi-task: and it is easier and more effective to multi-task with more and better tools than with fewer, worse ones.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

What I want to know, that if the oceans do rise, does Guam tip over?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

LynahFan said:
I specifically took time out of my day to come on the internet and suggest that we should do something INEFFECTIVE
Click to expand...

Well, is there any doubt that unilateral US action will be ineffective?

and how does one define "effective"? Do we use a cost-benefit analysis? How will it help the situation if we force substantial additional poverty on millions of people in exchange for a minor, perhaps trivial, incremental change in global emissions?

Shutting down all coal-fired electrical generation plants immediately seems to be the EPA's goal. I just don't see how that is cost-effective. My surmise is that if we were to promote substantial additional economic growth and then use the incremental additional wealth created to relocate people away from problem areas, we'd have a more cost-effective solution.

We don't even know whether global warming will occur or not. The models say that it will happen -- in 25 or 30 or 50 years -- unless there is a major volcanic event in the interim. The odds of such an event seem to be ~ 15% - 25% depending upon who you read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top