72 stories
·
2 followers

Les instituts de sondage revoient leurs modèles de projection

1 Share

130

Vous pouvez me suivre sur twitter , sur facebook et sur google

ligne_vignette_vignette_vignette

Partager le dessin :

Read the whole story
MacJL
96 days ago
reply
France
Share this story
Delete

Earth Temperature Timeline

15 Comments and 64 Shares
[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.
Read the whole story
MacJL
163 days ago
reply
France
popular
164 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
15 public comments
tedder
159 days ago
reply
Keep arguing about parking spaces, XKCD edition.
Uranus
sjk
164 days ago
reply
Proof that painting, pottery, rope, and bows and arrows cause Global Warming. All we need to do, is revert our technology to those halcyon days and all will be right with the world.
Florida
srsly
165 days ago
reply
All these likes and shares, even Samuel can't pull this attention!
Atlanta, Georgia
tante
165 days ago
reply
XKCD's brilliant visualization of global warming.
Oldenburg/Germany
DerBonk
166 days ago
reply
Munroe is on the top of his game with this web comics essay. Very disturbing. Summer is coming.
Germany
gangsterofboats
166 days ago
reply
Fossil fuels will solve the problem.
MaryEllenCG
166 days ago
reply
Yeah, we're fucked, because too many people believe climate change is a hoax.
Greater Bostonia
kazriko
166 days ago
I'd say it's because of doctrinare belief that the only way to stop climate change is to stop emitting carbon. I believe you'd make far more headway if you said that instead of a carbon tax, you had to transfer money to those who design and maintain carbon sinks. That would give people more incentive to create the technology to remove CO2 from the air, and to not cut down forests, etc.
stefanetal
164 days ago
@kazriko Your proposal is about as sensible as letting everybody take your stuff and then hiring people to look for it after a week. It will create costs and employment for looking. But you won't end up with much stuff. Not using the 100x more expensive technology isn't doctrinaire.
kazriko
164 days ago
You're not going to make any headway with the idea that everyone must immediately stop all of the things that make them healthy, prosperous, and happy though. The technology is only expensive because nobody has put money into the research and development of it. Even the drastic step of stopping emissions does nothing whatsoever for the problem because you have to do something about what is already in the air. If you want to actually solve the problem, then funding this research is the only way to actually do it.
stefanetal
163 days ago
Ahm, it's a carbon tax, like a sales tax, it won't 'stop all of the things that make [people] healthy, prosperous, and happy' any more than current sales taxes do. You might as well suggest people not be allow to take all the stuff they see that makes them happy. It's only expensive since property is theft. And if people could take what makes them happy, companies would do research on how to make more cheaply. Maybe the gov should fund research on that instead of wasting it on police. On a less sarcastic note, your view just does't work if you try to write out any basic cost functions based on any input-output technologies. There may be an escape if we get really cheap non-carbon energy, but that's about it. Paying people to put carbon back in the ground if you don't tax others as least as much to take it back out is about as reasonable as say Venezuela buying gasoline on the open market to sell it to 'users' at 10 cents/gallon (who then sell it right back). It may be how the politics play out (see your first sentence), but it doesn't end well (or it needs to be sustained by rationing -- which is where any implementation of your proposal is going).
stefanetal
163 days ago
Also, on 2nd thought, If you want to discuss cost functions and physical constraints on them, I'd be happy to do so non-sarcastically. Writing a good and realistically model of this might help clarify why we disagree and who is right/wrong, under which kinds kinds of assumptions. For instance, sometimes other costs (transportation costs?) do function as the near equivalent of Pigouvian taxes, so things can work out at times for other reasons. I don't see that here.
stefanetal
163 days ago
Real issue is that the climate change 'cost' part is still pretty much all in the future, due to the very very high heat capacity of the ocean and the ocean's slow turnover. Lots of future warming is already fully baked in and many people aren't willing the see it as real yet. And I do expect that using taxes to control carbon emissions is going to look very gentle compared to methods that at least some groups are going to try 50 years from now (say, biological methods to control energy demand by reducing the customer base). So concern about taxes making people unhappy is going to look very pre-crisis quaint.
kazriko
163 days ago
That's quite the wall of text there. I'm not talking about the carbon tax. I'm talking about all of the environmentalists who say that the only solution is the complete ceasing of all emissions, and won't take "nuclear" for an answer. You know, the ones you're referring to as "some groups are going to try." You would be taxing others through this scheme, but you would be then shifting that money to putting carbon back in the ground, instead of shifting it to governments to do... whatever... with. I just don't trust anyone who says that taxes only are a viable answer because it will neither decrease emissions enough, nor will it actually decrease concentrations whatsoever. It alone is not a solution. It is only an intermediate step towards banning all emissions.
stefanetal
163 days ago
You write: "I'm not talking about the carbon tax." I was responding to your 2nd initial sentense: " I believe you'd make far more headway if you said that instead of a carbon tax". And your arguement that carbon can't be in the tax base since taxes are bad is...well, we already have a tax base, just a economically and ecology less good one. Can't follow your other claims, but they strike me as incoherent as articulated (i.e. using word with different coverage in different parts of the argument as if they referred to the same thing, that is 'carbon tax' = 'crazy enviromenatlist", so lets discuss "crazy enviromentalists". You've not shown that carbon taxes are crazy or associated only with crazy enviromentalists. ).
kazriko
163 days ago
The main thing I don't want is for how all of the current taxation schemes seem to be doing it. Emitters are grandfathered in to a certain amount, and if they cut emissions they can sell those credits to others. This basically entrenches all of the existing interests and makes it impossible for new companies to make any headway. Any solution shouldn't give exemptions to the entrenched, only allow those who find ways of mitigating the issue to sell exemptions to others.
kazriko
163 days ago
*sigh* Yes, that sentence doesn't parse the way I was intending. I was meaning instead of ONLY a carbon tax. I didn't also mean "crazy environmentalist" = "carbon tax" but "crazy environmentalist" = "100% end of all carbon emissions" As I said just before, the problem with the tax schemes are that they just go to do whatever, and don't solve the problem, just slightly discourage things rather than solving them. Only a carbon tax will lead to the 100% end of emissions because it won't work, and if it doesn't work, by your own admission people will be doing less gentle methods.
kazriko
163 days ago
You can see what I intended to say by the "transfer money to" thing in the same sentence. That meant transfer money from those who emit carbon to those who remove it.
stefanetal
163 days ago
Ah, mostly a misunderstanging then...:-). We still disagree, but I can dial back to a much more manageable debate...need to run now. I do take the technocratic basline view that Pigouvian taxes are a good starting point, but there are political issues that are serious and hard to model. More later...
Ferret
166 days ago
reply
:-|
wreichard
166 days ago
reply
The power of visualization.
Earth
darastar
166 days ago
reply
This is legit. And also scary?
alt_text_bot
166 days ago
reply
[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.
drchuck
166 days ago
reply
Stonehenge!
Long Island, NY
emdeesee
166 days ago
reply
Fun fact: If laser-etched onto a 2x4 we use to hit people who say "...but the climate has changed before" over the head, it would be almost seven feet long.
Lincoln, NE
joeythesaint
166 days ago
And since the most common sizes you find 2x4s in is 6' and 8' long and you wouldn't want to truncate the graph, that means you've got more than an extra foot to extrapolate the data further. Or wrap it with a shirt and tape so you don't get calluses.
jscartergilson
166 days ago
reply
bookmarked
smadin
166 days ago
reply
Today in We're Fucked
Boston

Brexit : et maintenant, on fait quoi ?

1 Share

imageAujourd’hui, un petit dessin dans le train et surtout une petite pensée pour tous les journalistes qui vont tenter d’analyser les conséquences du Brexit, un peu, et de prédire l’avenir, beaucoup.

Read the whole story
MacJL
246 days ago
reply
France
Share this story
Delete

Comic for March 04, 2016

1 Share
Dilbert readers - Please visit Dilbert.com to read this feature. Due to changes with our feeds, we are now making this RSS feed a link to Dilbert.com.
Read the whole story
MacJL
358 days ago
reply
France
Share this story
Delete

Space Jetta

1 Comment and 7 Shares

Space Jetta

What if I tried to re-enter the atmosphere in my car? (a 2000 VW Jetta TDI). Would it do more environmental damage than it is already apparently doing?

—Casey Berg

Believe it or not, throwing cars at a planet might be better for the planet than driving them on the surface. But it's hard to say for sure.

Volkswagen, as you've apparently heard, has been cheating on pollution tests since 2009. Your car was made before they started cheating, but that doesn't actually mean it pollutes less. Since the 1970s, the US has been tightening the rules around some of the exhaust gasses that create smog, like nitric oxide. By the mid-2000s, when the latest round of standards kicked in, Volkswagen apparently decided it was too expensive to keep up without sacrificing performance. Instead, they modified their cars to cheat on the tests, then lied to customers about how clean their cars were.

If you somehow put your car in orbit, then let it re-enter the atmosphere and burn up like a satellite, that would put an end to the tailpipe pollution.

On the other hand, burned fragments of your car (and body) would be scattered throughout the stratosphere. So what impact does space debris have on our air?

The surprising answer is that no one really knows. Roughly one major piece of space debris, like a satellite or booster rocket, re-enters the atmosphere each day. We talk about them "burning up," but they don't really disappear. Big chunks of them make it to the ground (usually falling in the ocean or landing in the desert somewhere.) Other dust and fragments are scattered throughout the stratosphere, and no one really knows what effect they have on anything.

Your car's shockwave would also create nitric oxide, which would—briefly—eat a small hole in the ozone layer. That hole would "close up" quickly, and the overall impact on the ozone layer would be small compared to other sources of ozone depletion.

While your car would briefly harm the ozone layer, it would help with global warming. I don't know how long you expect to have your car, but if you drive it another hundred thousand miles, it will emit about 20 or 30 tons of carbon dioxide. By destroying your car, it's true that you'll be literally putting carbon into the atmosphere, but not nearly as much as you would by continuing to drive it.

In the end, the real problem isn't the re-entry—it's the launch. Rocket launches have a much larger impact to the environment than re-entry, although it's still small in the grand scheme of things since we don't launch very many rockets.

Which raises a final question: What are you and your car doing in orbit in the first place? Are you the only one? Or have all cars been teleported into orbit? If so, we could be in trouble.

It's unlikely that any one piece of satellite debris will hit someone. But there are several hundred million passenger cars in the United States alone. If all of them were suddenly shot into orbit and allowed to reenter, it's likely that somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand people would be injured or killed by falling engine blocks, transmissions, and half-melted axles.

On the other hand, about thirty thousand Americans are killed each year in motor vehicle accidents. So while launching all our cars into space—and letting them fall back down and hit us—might sound like a bad idea ...

... it's arguably a lot safer than continuing to drive them.

Read the whole story
MacJL
398 days ago
reply
France
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
satadru
399 days ago
reply
The SpaceX alt text is great.
New York, NY
treedweller
398 days ago
And now I have to carve out some time to go back through all the previous posts and look at the alt texts I never noticed. Thank you.
HarlandCorbin
397 days ago
Don't forget XKCD's alt-texts too.

malinchristersson: The difference between an easy model and a...

2 Comments and 13 Shares


malinchristersson:

The difference between an easy model and a complicated one.

Heliocentrism and geocentrism

Read the whole story
MacJL
411 days ago
reply
France
popular
411 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
2 public comments
dukeofwulf
411 days ago
reply
It's pretty hypnotic to watch the lazy looping of Uranus and Neptune.
fxer
413 days ago
reply
Love how the inner planets have to go outside the sun's orbit and the constant looping to explain retrograde motion. Behold the Bibledynamics.
Bend, Oregon
Next Page of Stories